Want Safe Skies? Strap This Remote-Controlled Stun Device To Yourself!

Make of this what you will, as the story comes from the Reverend Sun Myung Moon’s church-owned Washington Times and may be more fiction than fact, but “a senior government official with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has expressed great interest in a so-called safety bracelet that would serve as a stun device, similar to that of a police Taser.” Yes, the EMD Safety Bracelet from Lamperd Less Lethal is designed to make flying a fun experience once again. Just check out everything it can do:

  • Take the place of an airline boarding pass.
  • Contain personal information about the traveler.
  • Be able to monitor the whereabouts of each passenger and his/her luggage.
  • Shock the wearer on command, completely immobilizing him/her for several minutes.

Lamperd Less Lethal—oddly, that name doesn’t make us confident about either the effectiveness or the safety of their products—has an entertaining instructional video on their site that explains why this is such a great idea. It opens with footage of the planes hitting the WTC towers, just in case you’ve forgotten, then describes how all the current solutions are ineffective—biometrics can’t spot “new” terrorists who aren’t in the database, Air Marshalls can inflict friendly fire on nearby passengers, etc. But they’ve got an answer in the EMD Safety Bracelet! Check out these handy graphics if you don’t believe them:

Okay, we doctored that last one, but you know there’d be a technical glitch at some point that turns everyone on the manifest into a herky-jerky bag of twitching muscles. Pretzels everywhere! Plastic drink cups flying! You have to admit, it’d be funny to see (so long as your own EMD Safety Bracelet didn’t go off at the same time.)

Lamperd Less Lethal insists that this is a great idea, and that passengers won’t mind being figuratively collared like slaves out of a bad sci-fi movie:

Wearing an EMD safety bracelet for a few hours during a flight is a small inconvenience to ensure their safe arrival…many if not most passengers would happily opt for the extra security of the EMD safety bracelet.

We’ll admit, it would certainly make it easier for flight attendants to take care of drunks, fashion victims, unruly children, and the occasional masturbator. But if DHS wants to take security this far, why not just anesthetize passengers and load us up on gurneys, where we’ll remain blissfully unconscious as we’re shipped like freight across the globe? It would be more dignified than wearing a stun bracelet.

“Want some torture with your peanuts?” [Washington Times] (Thanks to Capt Janeway!)
EMD Safety Bracelet video [Lamperd Less Lethal]


Edit Your Comment

  1. When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

  2. OK, correct me if I’m wrong, but stun guns and the like rely on the shock causing the muscles to contract. If the terrorist had his finger on “the button”, wouldn’t this be a bad idea?

  3. “Is it, uh…a couple of wavy lines?”

  4. henrygates says:

    This has to be a joke.

  5. MissPeacock says:

    That last, doctored photo with all the bodies splayed about has me giggling like a madwoman, Chris. Way too funny.

  6. CaliCheeseSucks says:

    I’m confused. How does shocking myself make me safer? I mean, I know I have crazy thoughts sometimes, but still…

  7. Pennsylvanian123 says:

    Someone remind me: Why does anybody fly anymore?

    That is not an “ID Bracelet”, it is a restraint device. Requiring the blanket wearing of a restraint device for airline passengers is clearly unreasonable.

    The culture of fear that is pervading the minds of the public is so blatantly irrational as to be absurd. If airlines were to accept this and attempt to implement it, this will be our lowest point yet. People honestly seem to be forgetting that you are more likely to be struck by lightning that be the victim of a terrorist attack, and we don’t all have lightning rods install in our heads. Sigh.

  8. blue_duck says:

    I’m a little taken aback by the fake your own death function of this bracelet. However, if it contains personal info and it’s in watch, it can easily be stolen I would think.

  9. InThrees says:

    So basically the master plan here is adapt the electrified dog collar/”virtual fence” to people?

    USA! USA! USA!

  10. Ringl says:

    So would we have to turn them off for take-off and landing?

  11. nataku8_e30 says:

    It seems like as long as you’re doing this, you might as well take a page from The Fifth Element and induce unconsciousness in all the passengers for the duration of the flight.

  12. ark86 says:

    Wasn’t it Benjamin Franklin who said that “those who would exchange liberty for security deserve neither”? (Horrible paraphrase there. My US History professor is rolling in his grave now.)

    I would be MORE worried wearing this. What if someone figured out how to hack the control frequency? The ensuing panic would be a perfect opportunity to pull off something crazy on a plane.

    I call shenanigans. This just can’t be real.

  13. Thank god they don’t let us bring liquids on the plane anymore. We would spill them all over the place as we convulse from the taserings.

  14. TheSpatulaOfLove says:

    @suburbancowboy: I’m ready for the next Revolution – are you?

    This shit has got to stop…NOW.

  15. Thaddeus says:

    “…many if not most passengers would happily opt for the extra security of the EMD safety bracelet.”

    No, see it’s optional.

  16. If they implement this can they also implement the use of no-bark dog collars for screaming children? Do you think congress would pass an Adult Ear Protection Act?

    It would make my trips to the grocery store/movie theater/airplane/city bus/life in general more tolerable.

  17. Pennsylvanian123 says:

    One more thing: I would also be interested to find out how involved this “senior government official” is with “Lamperd Less Lethal”. Is it merely that he or she is a founding investor and member of the board, a brother- or sister-in-law to the starter of this “family business” or actual majority owner and CEO?

  18. henrygates says:

    @CaliCheeseSucks: I’m pretty sure you can’t shock yourself, and that the trigger for the shock will be in the hands of the flight attendants – who we all know are rational, caring people who never overreact to anything, right?

    At the same time, it seems any terrorist would remove the bracelet before performing any misdeeds.

  19. ekthesy says:

    So when can we officially say “the terrorists have won”? This little beauty may put us over the top, if the ban on liquids didn’t get us there already.

  20. Sandtigrr says:

    @Thaddeus: Optional almost always becomes required when it comes to government and airlines.

    I for one will not fly if this ever becomes a requirement.

  21. doctor_cos wants you to remain calm says:

    @suburbancowboy: You have put that a lot more eloquently than I would have :)

    I am sure there are a lot of folks who would submit to this to save the $2 for the soda.

    This is what happens when you’re too busy watching television and not paying attention to those who are in control.

  22. @suburbancowboy: Yeah we wouldn’t want to get all crazy with the shampoo, it has “Sudsing Action 2000 Technology” that might cause mayhem and incredibly slippery floors

  23. starrion says:

    I’ll be waiting for the new story:

    An unexpected malfunction caused the passenger restraint devices to go off on xxx flight 271, which administered “mild” shocks to the passengers until the pilot could land the plane. The passengers experienced moderate discomfort until the devices could be removed at the gate about two hours later. Restraint device removal tools are strictly not allowed on the aircraft as a security feature. The airline will be providing mileage bonuses to all the affected passengers.”

    Hell No.
    And if you were wondering: Definately Not.

  24. mike says:

    I’m calling shinagins. I’ll wait for the wikileak’d document.

  25. Hey slow down everyone…think of how helpful this could be for that little 11 year old brat in front of you that laughs everytime he reclines his chair spilling your drink all over you. Simply shock the little b*stard.

    That smelly guy who keeps falling asleep on your shoulder? Problem solved.

    A crazy supermodel slapping people around? A little zap’ll do ya!

    Seriously, let’s give this a chance.

  26. Gopher bond says:

    I sure as hell wouldn’t mind a mandatory shot of morphine before boarding. That stuff is like the kiss of an angel. Probably get a lot more repeat flyers too. I think it’s impossible to committ a violent act in the middle of a morphine high. Coming off it though, maybe not so much. You’d have to reduce airport delays too.

  27. @ark86: “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

    A wise quote, and something to think about when we see ideas like this that tell us it will make us ‘safer’. I have a feeling more would ‘opt-out’ of this, rendering the system completely useless. Unless they use it to weed out terrorists. Anyone who ‘opts out’ is essentially labeled a terrorist.

    Another good quote from V for Vendetta: “People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

  28. thebluepill says:

    Why not just give the stewards on the plane shotguns and let them patrol the isles, like the movie con-air.

  29. SkokieGuy says:

    And know instead of the terrorist working so terribly hard to figure out how to blow up planes with UNDER 3oz of liquid, they simply need to learn how to hack into the signals to these bracelets and render all passengers helpless.

    No more brave passengers like the ones who fought back on 9/11 with this great new device.

    So what country is going to invade the US to restore OUR democracy and freedom?

  30. mike says:

    @IamNotToddDavis: I like your attitude. Think of the new kind of fun that people can have when trying to enter the mile-high club!

  31. cubejockey says:

    Three words: personal flying vehicle.

  32. @TheSpatulaOfLove:

    I’m ready for the next Revolution – are you?

    This shit has got to stop…NOW.

    Seriously, grow up. This isn’t happening, period. One…ONE news outlet reports on this (one that’s known for a certain bias), and we’re ready to go and write the Declaration of Independence ver. 2.0?

  33. @SkokieGuy:

    So what country is going to invade the US to restore OUR democracy and freedom?

    Don’t worry, Barack Obama will change everything.

    Of course, this bracelet falls under the category of “Change”, and Barack hasn’t been exactly forthcoming on the details of his “changes”.

  34. blue_duck says:

    @mandiejackson: That one might need to be some sort of vocal chord silencer… Oh, wouldn’t it be nice?

  35. angryhippo says:

    @thebluepill: Nah, just shackle us to the chairs or if you get the little SSSS on your boarding pass you get to spend the entire flight in “The Cage”.

    The opt-out nugget in the story leads me to think this is bogus. Aside from the insanity of the whole idea, what good would it be if you could say “eh, no thanks”?

  36. Vastarien202 says:

    This is absolutely stupid. If I get labled as a terrorist for refusing to be at the mercy of a paranoid moron on a power trip, then so be it. I agree with SkokieGuy, we need help to fix our country.

  37. Smitherd says:

    @Ash78: “You can keep the five bucks, mister!”

    Great double meaning here.

  38. palookapalooza says:

    So how, in an emergency, would a flight attendant know exactly which bracelet to activate, in case some passenger decides to get all uppity? Or would they just zap the whole plane?

    It would be funny though. They’ll be rolling in the aisles! (Or spasming. One of the two.)

  39. blue_duck says:

    @testsicles: Airport bars + free mandatory morphine… Let the fun ensue!!!

  40. Anks329 says:

    If this does happen, I know that I wouldn’t be flying at all. I’d rather spend an extra day looking at the pretty scenery taking a train where ever i need to go.

  41. mrdot says:

    I am all for this if this device if the airlines have discretion whether or not to use it. Passengers who want the “extra” security can fly on one airline, while passengers who don’t can fly on a different airline. If the government imposes this device on all flying passengers, however, I think there should be a revolt.

  42. darksunfox says:

    Not to be terribly insensitive, but since 9/11, has there really been a problem with hijackings? Could anyone imagine a problem developing in the forseeable future after what happened? Why is it that we keep giving up liberties to prevent hijackings? It’s like Californians building traps to keep condors out.

  43. MercuryPDX says:

    So Pic 4 is “Air Steward vs. terrorist”, but what’s the deal with pic 5?

    Is it “What’s this button do?” or “Air Steward vs. passengers who complain the in-flight movie is Gigli”?

  44. savvy999 says:

    Only on planes? That’s crap. Citizens of Amerika should be forced to wear these at all times, starting in kindergarten. Discipline will be enforced young.

    Combine it with a credit card speedpass, a tiny GPS, little Dick Tracy-like cell phone…. and all of tied it into a national ID system… we’d never need cash or maps or cell phones or drivers’ licenses again.

    I want a white one though, sleek and stylish, made by Apple.

  45. snoop-blog says:

    There’s a part of me that wants to believe consumers would refuse to fly if they implemented this, but alas, surely a few idiots would still fly.

  46. paladyn says:

    What’s to prevent a terrorist from bypassing the device? It looks like all it would take is a conductive disc with an insulating backing slipped in between the device’s electrodes and the skin. This could easily be concealed in a watch.

  47. snoop-blog says:

    …and I’m sure no one would be able to figure out how to hack these devices to use them against us… because you know radio controlled devices are %1000 secure.

  48. Concerned_Citizen says:

    Why not a panic button in the cockpit that releases sleeping gas to the passenger cabin? You don’t have to strap gizmos to people’s wrists and the next time terrorists try to break into the cockpit you can put them to sleep. I think everyone would agree that in the event of terrorists trying to take over the plan the risks of sleeping gas are much better than crashing into a building.

  49. emona says:

    I think I’d be a bit more surprised if this weren’t true. Even if it’s not set for release, I’m sure the idea has been tossed around in more than one bigwig meeting room.

    Consumerist’s solution immediately made me think of The Fifth Element. Mandatory sleep chambers… brilliant.

  50. Sandtigrr says:

    @COncerned_Citizen: Liability concerns galore with that idea. What about people with Asthma, Sleep Apnea, or any other breathing condition? For those people a sleeping gas could be just as much of a death sentence. There’s a reason why anesthesia requires a doc to use it.

  51. ninabi says:

    From my consumer’s point of view-

    No. I will not purchase this service with the bracelet option. I will take my money elsewhere.

  52. MercuryPDX says:

    @ninabi: I think you will have to go elsewhere because these bracelets are an “All or nothing” proposition. It’s not exactly 100% effective as the video claims if only 50% of the plane is wearing them.

    I’ll be right behind you on “Bracelet Free Airlines”. :)

  53. TCameron says:

    DHS has officially Jumped the Shark.

  54. MayorBee says:

    These things have got to be expensive, though. I might go so far as to say…shockingly expensive.

    @MercuryPDX: Wouldn’t the passengers already be unconscious from watching Gigli?

  55. chargernj says:

    @Git Em SteveDave seeks Lego build buddy. How about you?: yeah you’re wrong. The terrorist with the explosive laden vest and deadman’s switch doesn’t get past security. I realize the TSA can be inept, but probably not that inept.

    This device is for the guys who think they can take over a plane with just a few box cutters. Does it make me a bad person cause I want to see someone try that again and get their asses handed to them by the passengers? I would like to think that American’s wouldn’t react the same way seeing what happened last time. Maybe that’s why terrorist aren’t hijacking planes so much anymore…

    For the record, I think the tazer/watch is a stupid idea.

  56. SBR249 says:

    Next time I fly, to whom shall I make the request to have the crying kid behind me kicking my seatback zapped? Thanks.

  57. This has to be fake. Nobody in their right mind would think this is a good idea.

    Flooding the cabin with sleeping gas is a worse idea, different people react to different doses. A dose that could put you out could leave me unaffected. I say have self destruct devices on the planes, that way if terrorists try to take over blow up the plane that will show them.

  58. MayorBee says:

    Before police officers are allowed to use pepper spray, they get to experience what it feels like first hand. I’m hereby volunteering to run the tests on the flight attendants so they know what they’ll be doing when they press that shiny, red, candy-like button.

    And how do they shock only the right passenger? “Excuse me sir, what’s your bracelet number please?” I imagine it would work like those little pager things at restaurants.

  59. bmorg003 says:

    I highly doubt that the bracelets are 100% tamperproof and effective. If they rigged up an electronic tazer-like device in all of the seats (with possibly the exception of “the john”), then it would be less succeptible to tampering and far more effective (unless you were to remain standing, in which case you’d be labeled a terrorist and shot immediately). Imagine being to tap into the power of a jet engine (or several in most cases) to electronically incapacitate your passengers, instead of that dinky little bracelet. I for one look forward to the day that I can fly the friendly skies in 100% safety while strapped to an “electric chair.”

  60. SkokieGuy says:

    @hypochondriac: Who thinks confiscating nail clippers and shampoo bottles is a good idea?

    This is not fake, you can go to the company’s website and read all sorts of details.

    And I agree with the earlier comment that there must be big $$$ connections between this company and our government.

    Taser like devices that prisoners wear that can be actived by remote control have been around for a while. They are meant for the safety of the prison employees when transporting dangerous criminals, (without firing a taser into a crowd, for example). This is simply a new application of existing technology.

  61. Shadowman615 says:

    One pragmatic issue about slide 4 in the picture set. How does the air marshall know which passenger’s device to shock? Unless he was just going to blanket-shock all of the passengers (like in slide 5 — that had me laughing out loud at work), the air marshall would have to be able to identify which bracelet to shock and dial up the correct bracelet, all in less than the time it takes the terrorist to attack.

    I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it’s certainly error-prone. I’d imagine in a moment like that, with a charging terrorist, the Air Marshall might have no choice but to shock the whole airplane.

  62. artki says:

    Hasn’t anybody watched “Cheers”?
    “Dance, Mailman!”

    (s7, ep 153)

  63. MercuryPDX says:

    @MayorBee: Well according to the warning label on the side of the box “Possible side effects include retching, uncontrolled vomiting, digestive tract discomfort and in extreme cases mental distress.” ;)

    Aside from ripping it off your wrist, I’d imagine you could slide something non-conductive between it and your skin to render it useless too.

  64. unpolloloco says:

    off to learn RF hacking….

  65. joebobfunguy says:

    Wouldn’t it be great if they made this a feature? No more crying babies, no more uncomfortable naps, you won’t even know you’ve flown!

  66. NumberFiveIsAlive says:

    I’m more afraid of a Tim Burtons Batman scenario where you are zapped and eventually burn slowly to death. Yes, that is a rational fear.

  67. Trai_Dep says:

    Nice to see what our nation’s #1 Conservative paper considers when contemplating liberty and safety. Yeesh.
    Perhaps if they move the bracelets a bit lower and add a vibrate setting, we can solve the “problem” thru l-o-v-e? Or, the physiological equivalent.

  68. r4__ says:

    People die from tasers. Clearly the solution is more tasers on more planes.

    Is there a TSA rule against wearing full-gauntlet leather gloves? Metal gloves?

    Repeating the “holy shit, let’s do this so i can stealthily shock the fuck out of people using my laptop and a self-contained RF transmitter” angle.

    If they do become mandatory (extremely unlikely), what’s the over/under on support for these being added to GNU Radio? (plug a transmitter into the headphone jack of your laptop… zap zap!)
    I’d buy one and start working on it ten minutes after the announcement.
    God, I’m glad that my engineering discipline happens to coincide with insecure, dangerous, and stupid ideas like this.

  69. r4__ says:

    @InfiniTrent: Have you ever read Transmetropolitan? Barack Obama bears a disturbing resemblance to the Smiler.

  70. weakdome says:

    Can you wear it somewhere other than on your wrist? Some people are into that :)

  71. TheSpatulaOfLove says:


    You want to tell ME to grow up? Where the hell have you been, son? Each day more and more civil liberties are removed. You think you live in a free democratic society anymore? You’re clearly the one with your head in the sand. Let me guess, you think the Patriot Act is a good thing, right? You believe we should give up rights in the name of safety, right?

    You’re freaking clueless.

    Personally, I’d much rather die in a fiery air disaster knowing I was free than be a scared pussy that has demanded the government save me from terrorists and accepting the rapid erosion of my privacy.

    It’s obvious our government no longer listens to the citizens. They only listen to the special interests and lobbyists.

    Go back to playing with your iPhone and your Wii.

  72. PølάrβǽЯ says:

    “So what country is going to invade the US to restore OUR democracy and freedom?”
    @SkokieGuy: GREAT QUESTION! As we continually “fight” to restore other countries’ democracies and freedoms, we seem to lose more and more of our own. Who the hell is supposed to invade our country, take our government out of power and let us citizens rebuild it?

  73. Consumer007 says:

    @CaliCheeseSucks: Ah Cali, but you see that is where you are wrong. It is up to Dick-head Cheney or some other Republican who decides you are the enemy and must be punished to shock you, you wouldn’t be able to shock yourself. And why stop once you’re off the flight? Why not just make everyone wear them all the time so we are all always “safe”?

    I SERIOUSLY hope we rebel when they try to start forcing everyone to wear them, whether it’s just during airline flights or otherwise. We ARE NOT Cattle, people!

    @InfiniTrent: Well, those of us who value our civil liberties are VIGILANT and will resist this insanity. It reminds me of some old Shwarzenegger movie where prisoners walked around in a space with a square around it with no walls. They knew if they stepped on the boundary, the collar around their neck would blow their head off. But you know, really, why stop at a boundary? think the wrong thought, have the wrong DNA, say the wrong words or feel the wrong biological impulse at the wrong time….boom. Yes, Republican Neo-Cons really think like this and want this for all of us…

  74. DH405 says:

    1. Um. Cut it off. Hijack plane, controlling crowd with handy new device.

    2. NEVER trust the Moonies. Crazy nut asshole.

  75. Consumer007 says:

    Oh and that last slide, priceless – I’m sure Repubs climaxed and CAN’T WAIT to give Lockheed or Halliburton the contract…

  76. Marshfield says:

    I will wear one when El Al (Israel airline) starts using them. They are more security conscious (and have been for many years) than any US airline, even post-911.

  77. ARVash says:

    I can’t wait till some budding crazy electrical engineer reverse engineers this device and effectively causes image 5 to come into effect.

    In all seriousness; that would probably be one of the FIRST things to happen to this device.

    Rule Number 1: Do not strap remote controlled weapons to people.

    Rule Number 2: Minimize the amount of electronics you give to flight-goers; that is if you want to reduce plane bombings….

    I mean seriously if it can electrocute people, couldn’t it also detonate an inconspicuous non-liquid explosive, or set fire to the plane???!

    This gets the Golden Brick brain award.

  78. my decision to move to canada is once again validated

  79. ARVash says:

    Another point is this. It’s not a matter of “Will it be hacked” it’s a matter of, When will it be hacked.

    From the sounds of it, it holds personal information via RFID.

    I can imagine the fun of walking into the baggage claim with an RFID reader (you can pick them up at radio shack for 20$) and have fun with the hashes you get back.

    The potential for Identity theft with RFID is extremely high. If you have something that is physically accessible to a hacker, you might as well consider it already hacked.

  80. gliscameria says:

    What a great idea, electrical less-than-lethal weapons have never been abused by authority before! If you gave me a button I could press and everyone around me would fall to the floor and piss themselves… well… I’d have to try it at least once.

  81. smonkey says:

    So let me get this straight. They want the entire passenger cabin to have these. So if some intelligent and creative person got there hands on one of these they could in theory reverse engineer it and disable all the passengers in the cabin?

    Of course if it’s based on stun gun technology, couldn’t it just be defeated by a properly placed metal plate?

  82. mavrc says:

    This is one accident away from a massive lawsuit. (Or one hack away from being funny, depending on the circumstances and your proclivity for dark humor.)

  83. Dillenger69 says:

    This is insane.
    When can we be expected to be fitted with heart plugs?

  84. donkeyjote says:

    @chargernj: According to TSA tests, 90 percent of obvious bombs (Read: cartoon bowlingball like bombs and bombs with watches and wires and dynamite written on the side) got through.

  85. ThePantsParty says:

    It seems like almost everyone posting here is overreacting pretty severely. This seems like a perfectly reasonable precaution, and if you have a problem with it just don’t fly. This is America, and if you have a problem with how your own government protects your well-being, then you might as well get out. If you hate everything so much, why would you want to live here anyway?

    The real problem, as others have pointed out, is that this safety device seems like it could be circumvented *far* too easily. Anyone smart enough to get a weapon on to the plane would probably be smart enough to deactivate this device. I think a much more reasonable approach, would be to have a permanent device attached to every U.S. citizen, sort of along the lines of what savvy999 was talking about, but not a bracelet or anything removable. Some sort of device implanted internally at birth in a compromising location (heart or brain) that would work like a sort of kill-switch if the individual became unruly or posed some sort of threat. This would not only protect against terrorist attacks, but would also ensure a much more well-behaved society. Until we implement some form of a precaution such as this, I really fear for our country. It seems like people’s behavior only continues to deteriorate.

  86. kathyl says:

    @SkokieGuy: Absolutely in agreement that this is just a weapon, and that there are ways for any weapon to be turned against the people who are trying to use it for defense.

    There is no conceivable reason why a terrorist couldn’t learn enough about the devices to activate them and use them against the people on the plane. It’s ludicrous to think this will help in any way, shape, or form.

    I have flown once since all of this lunacy really began, and that was only because it was the only way my elderly parents could see their only grandchild for the first time since she was five months old. I will avoid flying under anything but the most necessary of circumstances because of this no liquids/watch out for knitting needles/let’s poke the autistic children and then blame their inevitable meltdown on them sort of idiocy pervading the airline industry.

    If these goofballs think I’m going to strap this shock wristband to my KID, they can kiss my behind. I’ll let them know when I’ve turned into a sheep, but they shouldn’t hold their breath.

  87. scerwup says:

    I wouldn’t wear one for a flight, but I would like to have one or two of these. Perhaps I could require any installer or technician who comes to my house to wear one upon entering. I would just be making it “safer” for them to do their job. That way, if they asked for a glass of water, or to use the bathroom, I could just tell them no, in a special way. Let’s not forget the ones who want a tip. “I’ve got a tip for you!”.

    Anyway, on a more serious note, while I doubt that people would ever accept this as a requirement for flying, just the fact that it has been thought out, and probably tested, is kind of disturbing. Do companies really think that it is worth their time to create something so obviously intended to treat people like…. cattle.

    Also, the “altered” picture that’s last in line is totally great. And while you may have altered it for the amusement of everyone here, how long before someone who works for that company leaks a real graphic, almost exactly like that one, that the company themselves use for internal demonstration only, or something like that?

  88. Leohat says:

    Three words


  89. Parting says:

    If USA’s airlines would use it, that would be last nail in their coffin.

    I’m not going to risk my life wearing this shitty taser. I’d swim, if necessary.

  90. doctor_cos wants you to remain calm says:


    So what country is going to invade the US to restore OUR democracy and freedom?

    Post of the month.

  91. I’m going to make a wild guess and assume that this technology is intended for the transport of convicts, which is sometimes done using civilian airlines. That is a sensible explanation, albeit less sensational than the Big Brother straw man that’s got everyone indulging their fantasies of impending oppression.

  92. Jabberkaty says:

    Seems to me that if you want it to work like a Taser you need two connection points that are spread rather far apart (the two probes that fly out of the Taser gun both need to hit, and it does work by contracting muscles about crap, what was 15 times a second…let me check my notes, but it has something of an immobilizing effect – hard to explain and not very pleasant) – otherwise it’ll just hurt your arm a lot, not immobilize anyone.

    Really you need two – one on the arm and the other, oh, around the waist or ankles to really drop someone.

    I think they should invent EMD hats and anklets if they really expect people to take them seriously.

    I’m seriously considering investing heavily in the horse and buggy market – cause that’s the way it’s looking like things are going.

  93. Dillenger69 says:

    @ThePantsParty: “If you hate everything so much, why would you want to live here anyway?”

    Right about now, I’d seriously consider moving elsewhere. However, America is still the shiniest turd in the box from my perspective. Canada runs a close second, but they are too close to the U.S. in policy. Britain is even worse when it comes to big brother policy. Anywhere else and I’d my family would need to learn a new language. I’m too old and lazy to do that. Nowhere is perfect. Nowhere will ever be perfect. So, out of sheer inertia I’ll stay in the U.S.A. and try to change things when I can.

  94. girly says:

    @Git Em SteveDave seeks Lego build buddy. How about you?: I agree. I would NEVER wear something like this! It’s just a convenient way for terrorists to incapacitate any potential resistors.

    Bad bad bad bad bad idea!

  95. Landru says:

    I’m sure was a Star Trek episode with these things. I’m not sure it ended well.

  96. axiomatic says:

    Yeah… this is a solution looking for a problem. Solution overkill in fact.

    I assure you that if this becomes standard I will stop flying all together.

  97. Plasmafire says:

    The Star Trek episode had these things around people’s necks, and they were very effective..

    next idea permanent stun collars for people…

  98. ThePantsParty says:

    I guess I forgot to add the [/satire] tage at the end of my original post…And I’m really surprised no one really said anything about it….lol

  99. The_IT_Crone says:

    I can’t… stop… laughing at the graphic…

    The most basic rule of weaponry: weigh the possibility of the weapon being used AGAINST you vs the possible benefits of using said weapon.

    This so fails that test.

    This would only be beneficial for large groups of people that are ALL lashing out. Like schoolkids.

  100. Bakamoichigei says:

    Add the ability to remote-detonate a tiny amount of plastic explosive contained within, and turn it into a collar, and we can have Battle Royale at thirty thousand feet!

  101. azntg says:

    Maybe if ALL of our public servants (from the rank and file all the way up to president) working in various levels of government (municipal, state, federal) are willing to wear this device while on their jobs, I might consider wearing that device on the airplane.

    We do need competance and accountability for those on the job as much as we need safety in the skies!

    @ThePantsParty: No need, your second passage makes clear your thoughts on the first one. Hence, you were wearing a fireproof suit all along.

  102. Plasmafire says:

    Why don’t we just attach these things to our driving licenses too, so we can only drive our vehicles if we wear one.

    That would make car chases a lot more interesting.

  103. Hulapop says:

    This is just like shock collars for dogs. Why not invisible fence us to the narrow uncomfortable seats too?

  104. chartrule says:

    not even if it was manditory would i wear one

  105. femmesavante says:

    @savvy999: LMAO. too hilarious.

  106. Zatnikitelman says:

    IF this country deteriorates any further, then hopefully the UN will make a pact against us like they made against Iraq or some other poor unlucky slob who did nothing to get invaded.

  107. clownbarf says:

    I learned this from my neighbor’s dog. Just take a bit of tinfoil from your hat and put it around your wrist under the band. There now. You’re safe from electrocution as well as alien mind control!

  108. skijmpr says:

    I’m not sure how these devices receive their signals, but making a miniature Faraday cage to enclose it should effectively disable it. Hooray for boondoggle technology. I think I found about 3 contradictions in their promo video too.

    This whole idea reminds me of a time in high school when I had to take care of a mock baby for a weekend, and you had to use a key to feed it by turning the key in its back. Your grade would be based on whether the baby was fed promptly, whether the baby was dropped or shaken, etc. The key was attached to your wrist by one of those secure adhesive laminated paper bracelets so that it would be possible to tell if you removed the bracelet. Or so they said. I had to run a 10K on Sunday and didn’t want to have that damn thing on my wrist, so a little hot water soaking and careful peeling was enough to leave the precious little electronic “box of cry” in my mom’s care while I ran. Nevermind that I had to take the bloody thing to a sports banquet on Friday evening and it decided the best time to start crying would be right in the middle of my football coach’s speech.

    Here is an idea to make these devices more interesting: Last time I flew, I noticed the plane I was on had some fairly advanced touch screens on the seat backs that even allowed things like chatting with other passengers. Let’s ratchet things up a bit more and allow passengers to vote by committee on who deserves to get shocked. Loud guy snoring in 8A? Kid jumping around in 14C? Bam!

    While we’re on the topic, I’ll also throw out one of my latest ideas for airplane security. If a passenger becomes unruly, the flight crew can press a button that will open a compartment over the troublemaker, from which a snake will fall on their head [cue Samuel Jackson].

  109. XuxaKabolla says:

    So what’s to stop anyone from putting a small non-conducting chunk of
    plastic or rubber between say their arm and the bracelet.

    +5 to security theatre though.