It seems that the communications security protocol flaws and lack of physical override/bypass or escape mechanisms we build into male chastity devices have been discovered. Look at how much the men now know:
The Cellmate, [an internet-connected male chastity device] produced by Chinese firm Qiui, is a cover that clamps on the base of the male genitals with a hardened steel ring, and does not have a physical key or manual override.
A security flaw in [the device] could allow hackers to remotely lock it — leaving users trapped, researchers have warned. … “An angle grinder or other suitable heavy tool would be required to cut the wearer free,” [British security firm Pen Test Partners said Tuesday].
The MRAs do not yet know it was engineered this way by scientists at NOW Labs. We must keep that information contained at all costs. In the meantime, get as many men fitted for Cellmates as soon as possible before masculine distrust sets in. Further updates on the secret channel.
As someone who once managed to shoot himself in the thigh with a nailgun*. I’m not sure I could be trusted with an anglegrinder near my bits!
(*”I’ll just rest these two bits of wood here…”)
I know! I read “angle grinder” and thought no effin’ way!
The whole image is so cringe-inducing I just had to share.
I was a member of a club called Torture Garden. I mainly went for the music and the demonstrations. I appreciate that’s like saying “I only read Playboy for the articles” but it’s true! 🙂
Anyway, saw this lass a few times:
“An angle grinder or other suitable heavy tool would be required to cut the wearer free,”
Whoever said that hasn’t seen what a tiny slip from an angle grinder will do to meat.
Marcus: even if there were no slips, the steel ring would get mighty hot.
I’m trying to imagine the circumstances that would lead anyone to put one of these things on in the first place. But, well, whatever floats your boat…
DonDueed (#5) –
You’re not looking down upon BDSM, I hope.
Chastity and denial is just another form of bondage. The difference is, restraint prevents the sub from doing anything and requires the presence of the dominant. Chastity allows the sub to do anything except one thing (and thus become obsessed with it and frustrated). It doesn’t require the dominant’s presence or a dominant at all, if the person locks themself (e.g. putting a key in a bank’s safety deposit box for a period of time).
Hacking and tampering with remote devices should be treated as sexual assault. There’s already at least one case of hackers activating remote vibrators without the wearer’s consent. Just as clothes don’t give consent for unwanted touching by others, neither does wearing a remote controlled sex toy.
I saw the headline and fell off my chair laughing.
Folks, do whatever gives you pleasure, but using sec toys with a blutooth connection seems worse than tying people up with cable binders, risk wise.
Intransitive — No I wasn’t, and I’m sorry if it came across that way. I was referring specifically to this particular device, with its Internet-connection locking mechanism with no backup system. Using it seems rather like entering a D/S scene with no safeword. That’s a bit beyond the pale, at least in my book.
DonDueed – And I was being 75% sarcastic, which didn’t come across as intended.
This brings a whole new layer of meaning to “penetration testing”.