DoD Descends On DEFCAD 496
First time accepted submitter He Who Has No Name writes "While the ATF appears to have no open objection to 3D printed firearms at this time, the Department of Defense apparently does. A short while ago, '#DEFCAD has gone dark at the request of the Department of Defense Trade Controls. Take it up with the Secretary of State' appeared on
the group's site, and download links for files hosted there began to give users popups warning of the DoD takeover."
Well, that didn't take long.
Note: As of this writing, the site is returning an error, rather than the message above, but founder Cody Wilson has posted a similar message to twitter. At least the Commander in Chief is in town to deliver the message personally.
Update: 05/09 21:17 GMT by T : Tweet aside, that should be Department of State, rather than Department of Defense, as many readers have pointed out. (Thanks!)
Well there ya go (Score:5, Insightful)
Glad to see that the first amendment is so inviolable...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First amendment only applies to our corporate overlords.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Press is free for those as own one.
Direct download link?? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the direct download link to all of their published files...
http://defcad.org/stl/zip/DefDist_DEFCAD_MEGA_PACK_v4.2_(Saito).zip [defcad.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
apparently the state department hasn't heard of the Streisand effect either
Re: (Score:3)
Here's the direct download link to all of their published files...
http://defcad.org/stl/zip/DefDist_DEFCAD_MEGA_PACK_v4.2_(Saito).zip [defcad.org]
Also from The Pirate Bay [thepiratebay.sx].
This wasn't just a publicity stunt by DefDist, was it?
Re:Direct download link?? (Score:5, Informative)
Here are a few mirrors to wreck the State Department's day:
http://www.jraxis.com/tmp/DefDist_DEFCAD_MEGA_PACK_v4.2_(Saito).zip [jraxis.com]
http://www.eprci.net/DefDist_DEFCAD_MEGA_PACK_v4.2_(Saito).zip [eprci.net]
https://www.nhteaparty.org/DefDist_DEFCAD_MEGA_PACK_v4.2_(Saito).zip [nhteaparty.org]
http://www.manchfreepress.com/sites/default/files/DefDist_DEFCAD_MEGA_PACK_v4.2_(Saito).zip [manchfreepress.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Oh well... might as well download this. I'm probably already on some government terrorist watch list for those couple of bitcoins I mined a few months ago :)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, the first amendment speaks about the right to bear arms, not about the right to make arms.
Re:Well there ya go (Score:5, Funny)
Much like the second amendment protecting you from unreasonable search and seisure and giving women the right to vote.
Pretty sure... (Score:4, Funny)
...most of congress, along with scotus, suffers from reasonable seizures. It's from the bill of blights, supported by executive disorder.
Re: (Score:2)
Just thinking out loud here - maybe you are meaning the second amendment?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the first amendment speaks about the right to bear arms, not about the right to make arms.
Uh, what? Could you repeat that? Thanks. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Well there ya go (Score:5, Insightful)
In the debates over abortion, one of the points supporters made was that denial of access to the means of exercising a right was indistinguishable from denying the right itself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"In the debates over abortion, one of the points supporters made was that denial of access to the means of exercising a right was indistinguishable from denying the right itself."
So true. Now tell that to the people who want to register and restrict guns, and / or restrict ammo. Especially the latter. They have said in so many words: you have the right to bear arms, but not to shoot them. Which -- as you point out -- is just as injurious to your right as taking the guns away.
Uh, no. (Score:5, Informative)
What you are missing here is that these files this guy is sharing are essentially just descriptions of shapes and therefore typically would be considered speech. The files then let you make arms (though really poor quality ones). He is sharing information though, not arms, which is why this has been transmuted from a second amendment issue to a first amendment one.
I'm still wondering though due to that Tao of Math line if I've been expertly trolled or not.
Re:Uh, no. (Score:4, Interesting)
s/nuclear bomb/arms/
What you are missing here is that these files this guy is sharing are essentially just descriptions of shapes and therefore typically would be considered speech. The files then let you make nuclear weapons (though really poor quality ones). He is sharing information though, not nuclear weapons, which is why this has been transmuted from a second amendment issue to a first amendment one.
Arms=small arms and nuclear arms. Free speech famously has limits (falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) so where do we draw the line here?
Re:Uh, no. (Score:4, Interesting)
"... so where do we draw the line here?"
This does not come anywhere near the line.
You can buy books published by the U.S. Government on how to make booby traps, home-made bombs and explosives, and so on. They are military books. But the government has no copyrights in most circumstances, so they are available for the public to freely copy and distribute. And our form of government can't work any other way.
More to the point: the Government also can't publish books on a subject themselves, then deny the right of others to do the same.
State Department means Hillary Clinton, who is an anti-gunner. (No doubt this administration looked high and low for some kind of excuse to restrict this.) If it's restricted by the State Department, that means it's restricted for export to other countries. They MIGHT, just barely, be able to make some kind of case of that nature.
They would not, however, be able to restrict sale or distribution of plans within the U.S.
Re:Uh, no. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Um, Hillary is actually not currently in Govt. any more; John Kerry now runs the State Department.
Don't go confusing the rightwingers with facts. If they actually had any facts, they'd be insufferable.
Re:Uh, no. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well there ya go (Score:5, Funny)
1st amendment + 2 amendment = right to print arms
Re: (Score:3)
+ 13th amendment = right to print arms in your home...but you can't make other people do it for you.
Re: (Score:3)
+ 3rd amendment = right to print arms... in your home.
That's incomplete. Make it:
+ 3rd amendment = right to print arms... in your home... unobserved by resident government agents (or their spyware equivalent)
The third amendment was not just about the government using your home as a free bed-and-breakfast for their army, but about preventing such government-mandated parasites being positioned where they could continuously spy on your activities at home. "Quartering troops" is an end-run around the "man's h
Re:Well there ya go (Score:5, Funny)
You have 10+ posts in this thread alone...
Says the guy who makes 100 posts in every thread.
Re:Well there ya go (Score:5, Funny)
You're one to talk, Anonymous Coward. I see you posting here all the time!
Re:Well there ya go (Score:5, Funny)
To be fair, I think his account is compromised. Either that or he has some form of multiple personality disorder. I think I like him best when he is English. At least he tends to be polite then.
Re:Well there ya go (Score:5, Informative)
Come on. This is not about the First Amendment. What they were doing was a brazen violation of ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) which explicitly prohibit the sharing by US individuals/entities of technical data pertaining to defense articles (i.e. those items that appear on the US Munitions List) with foreign entities. Posting on an open website certainly qualifies. To share any such data with a foreign entity requires a license from the State Department.
http://pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/documents/official_itar/2012/ITAR_Part_121.pdf
Re:Well there ya go (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a zip gun not some wonder weapon. How the hell is this a defense article?
Re:Well there ya go (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, it's a defense article because the DoD fucking said so.
Re:Well there ya go (Score:5, Informative)
Anything on the US Munitions List is considered a defense article. These are enumerated in the PDF I referenced and the definitions are quite broad. To wit, the first two items in Category I
* (a) Nonautomatic and semi-automatic .50 inclusive (12.7 mm). .50 caliber
firearms to caliber
* (b) Fully automatic firearms to
inclusive (12.7 mm).
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly what munitions has Defense Distributed shipped? I could see this law applying to firearms, but how does it apply to a description of a firearm? If I emailed a photo of a gun to someone in Brazil, would I be shipping munitions? I think not. I'd be sending a photo.
If a company publishes schematics for a gun on the internet, is it sending munitions? For example: http://www.gunpartscorp.com/Manufacturers/Ruger-33474/Revolvers-40405/VaqueroSA-38354.htm [gunpartscorp.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
apparently the State Department agrees with you, as they said it's a possible violation as well. The Forbes article has been updated with the full text of their letter (with a relevant part here):
Re: (Score:3)
Come on. This is not about the First Amendment. What they were doing was a brazen violation of ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) which explicitly prohibit the sharing by US individuals/entities of technical data pertaining to defense articles (i.e. those items that appear on the US Munitions List) with foreign entities. Posting on an open website certainly qualifies.
Yea, cuz, you know, the last thing the federal government would want is some American spreading around information to foreigners that would help them defend themselves against our government.
No sarc.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it is very much so about the First Amendment. The whole purpose of DD publishing these designs was to not just make a statement, but a very political statement. They couldn't have nearly as effectively made their statement without releasing these designs, making it critical to their political speech and thus deserving of highest level of protection. Given this, I fail to see how the ITAR or any similar law would mean shit in a court challenge - remember the constitution trumps any lowly piece o
Re: (Score:2)
Its probably an arms export violation. Much like PGP was.
Re:Well there ya go (Score:4, Insightful)
To paraphrase the fictional Dr. Ian Malcolm:
"Tyranny finds a way".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too (Score:4)
You know... bullets DO trip metal detectors and show up on X-rays.
Unless you're planning on beating somebody to death with your plastic gun, it's going to be detected.
Re: (Score:3)
Never heard of plastic bullets have you?
Never heard of plastic casings, or gunpowder free guns...
C'mon, man. Don't let your biases cloud your judgement.
Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too (Score:4, Insightful)
The limits we set on the constitution are chains we put on ourselves. No matter how dangerous you think guns are... or the ability to make them easily... or even terrorists... None of them even approach the dangers of a government unconstrained by a constitution. Hundreds, maybe thousands may die as a result of unconstrained gun rights, I'll not argue that with you. But compare that to the Governments of Germany, Russia, Vietnam, and many others who've murder hundreds of millions of people, tortured even more. Committed genocide, destabilized all of humanity for decades... all because due to lack restraints on government and legal chains put on free people.
An armed citizen may kill a few dozen, but government could kill the world.
Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too (Score:5, Informative)
You do realize the "clear and present danger" test was originally created to justify jailing people for protesting against WWI [wikipedia.org], right? If George W. Bush had arrested everyone who protested the Iraq War, would you have been fine with that?
Thankfully, Schenck v. United States was overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio [wikipedia.org], in favor of the imminent lawless action test, although that doesn't stop ignorant people who think watching a few episodes of Law & Order makes them constitutional scholars from bringing it up over and over.
Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too (Score:4, Informative)
Don't have to go through the trouble and expense of creating a gun (and ammo) that's invisible to x-ray and metal detectors. Just make a cheap, throw away slingshot with a couple of marbles and you have the equivalent of a silenced zip gun that's invisible to detectors, for all of about $10. If you can stash some ball bearings inside an obvious metallic object (metal pen, etc...) now you've got high density rounds that will do a through-and-through on someones head or torso. The people of Okinawa learned during Japanese occupations that effective weapons don't have to be complex.
Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too (Score:4, Informative)
It never ceases to amaze me how people are able to seize on the Amendments to justify their own short-sighted, stupid, destructive, extremist and anarchist hankerings.
Of course there are limits to how far you can push your first-amendment rights; there have to be. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org] and scroll down to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who formulated the clear and present danger test for free speech cases.
Thing is, Holmes was wrong in that case [popehat.com].
Re: (Score:3)
It never ceases to amaze me how statist asshole pigs are quick to throw the constitution in the garbage to further their own fucking lust for power and oppression.
Well actually, it doesn't amaze me at all. This is just the same old millennia-old piggish agenda that is built into their rotten carcass.
The horse has left the barn... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The horse has left the barn... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup, the internet as usual will treat censorship as damage and route around it.
Not that I would ever use those plans, I prefer my guns to be a heck of a lot more safe to operate.
Re:The horse has left the barn... (Score:4, Interesting)
You know, you can always use printed parts to cast molds and pour aluminum parts from them (or even steel if you're brave).
You could also bootstrap yourself a David Gingery lathe and turn a barrel from scrap steel if you wanted.
Just saying.
Re:The horse has left the barn... (Score:5, Insightful)
I could, or I could just buy parts or a lathe like a normal person.
Re: (Score:3)
You spoil all our fun.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, you can always use printed parts to cast molds and pour aluminum parts from them (or even steel if you're brave).
You could also bootstrap yourself a David Gingery lathe and turn a barrel from scrap steel if you wanted.
Just saying.
3d printing is a tad more complicated; the printed objects aren't solid, they can have intricate internal structures. To do it all from molds you basically need to machine every internal piece anyway, which would be easier if you didn't even bother to start with a 3d printed version in the first place (just start with designs for actual guns).
Re: (Score:2)
He suggesting printing the parts then using those for lost cast metal casting.
Re: (Score:2)
Note to self: experiment with a wax 3d printer 3d printer.
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? Castings are frequently machined down to finished gun components. Aluminum castings are often used as the starting stages of M-14 and AR-15 receivers.
Almost correct. AR-15/M-16 receivers can be (and commonly are) made from aluminum castings, but M-14 receivers are made from high-strength heat-treated steel, just like the M-1A and M-1 Garand. An aluminum M-14 receiver with standard dimensions would fail violently, possibly on the first shot.
The AR-15/M-16 design has the bolt lock into a steel barrel extension, and the receiver mostly just holds the parts in alignment. The assembly of bolt, barrel, barrel extension and case head handle the very high cham
That's not at all the point (Score:5, Informative)
The point isn't that DOD thinks the files are going to disappear, and it doesn't matter anyway since the purpose isn't to "disarm Americans" or "keep the files out of the hands of Americans" or some other utter garbage.
There are treaties and various arms control export restrictions (ITAR) at stake, and US-based corporations or entities cannot provide arms in violation of these constructs. If this sort of thing is on the Pirate Bay or elsewhere, DOD trade control doesn't care.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What does this have to do with 'arms treaty exports'? As CAD files, absolutely nothing.
This is CAD files, blueprints. Don't let them fool you: it very much is about controlling firearm dissemination.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, it is about "controlling firearm dissemination"...for EXPORT. That's why the State Department Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance is involved. If you've already made up your mind that the true motive relates somehow to American citizens in a country with as many privately owned firearms as people, no amount of logic or reason will change your mind.
Which puts the ITAR head-to-head with amendment 1 (Score:3)
ITAR also says that exporting blueprints and technical data related to an item requires an export permit in the same way that exporting the item does.
And this puts the ITAR rules in direct conflict with the First Amendment. Guess which wins: The Constitution, or a law?
This government action has just brought the conflict into scope for litigation and created a person with the necessary standing to bring the suit.
He's a law student, too.
(Also a self-proclaimed "anarchist libertarian, which I think is a slap
Chris Rock was right (Score:2, Funny)
We should control bullets and not guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZrFVtmRXrw
Re: (Score:2)
That would be pretty much impossible.
Bullets are easy to make. You could try to control gun powder or primers though.
I doubt either of those would work though.
Re: (Score:2)
Primers and powder aren't too hard to make either.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, but slightly more challenging than casting wheel weights into bullets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need high grade smokeless powder.
Old fashioned black powder is fine. You can use it in handguns and many rifle cartridges. Modern guns would tolerate it fine. Many of what we consider modern cartridges were originally black powder. Gas operated semi-autos will be the only real problem. More cleaning would be needed of course, but again not a huge issue. Many modernish rounds are still corrosive, like all the old russian ammo.
Not sure what you mean by modern black powder, all black powder is consid
Re: (Score:3)
They are just nuts.
Hornady CEO or pres the other day came out and said as much. Less than 5% of their output goes to all levels of government. This is panic buying and no manufacturer wants to invest in facilities and tooling that will go unused next year when the panic ends.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with this and it's annoying to someone who actively shoots on a regular basis and no longer can. I used to buy a brick of .22LR every couple months and at least 100 rounds of 9mm & .40 every month. I even gave up my range membership this year. No sense in spending $300 when there's no ammo to shoot. And I have a feeling that the ammo that is going to be produced this year is already spoken for by the panic buyers as people like me decide that maybe the next time we see ammo available at dece
wtf (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Disseminating ITAR-controlled information will get you nailed unless you can prove that only US residents can access it. Same thing happened with early web browsers that had strong(for the time) encryption enabled.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this primitive gun ITAR controlled?
Would information about how to make a shotgun from surgical rubber tubing, a nail, gas pipe and caps be ITAR controlled?
Re: (Score:3)
ITAR is one of the most nebulous, subjective, overbroad laws currently on the books.
You would be livid if you saw the full list of some of the ridiculous things that have been slapped with ITAR restrictions. Things like entertainment software (FS Flight Simulator), kids toys (explorer night vision goggles), and hiking equipment (various complex compasses and navigation aids that were allegedly too close to being useful for aiming mortars and artillery).
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is, when did we give the DoD control over domestic actions? The constitution strictly prohibits the military from acting as a policing force on US soil. So, who the hell gave them the right to take down a domestic website?
It's the State Department's export controls rules that they are afoul of; it's unclear exactly how the DoD is involved, if at all.
Re:wtf (Score:5, Informative)
ITAR. It's called ITAR.
Re:wtf (Score:4, Informative)
It's actually (allegedly) the Department of State. DEFCAD got their bureaucracy wrong. Would be awesome to get the headline corrected.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually (allegedly) the Department of State. DEFCAD got their bureaucracy wrong. Would be awesome to get the headline corrected.
It was in Wilson's tweet that the "Department of Defense" came up, it's a fitting reminder that the subject of all this attention is a rather bitterly paranoid young man. Smart, no doubt; and driven. But a bit too paranoid for me to think of him as stable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They were exporting weapons! Well, kind of -- programs that automatically create weapons when provided with a suitable 3D printer. So that probably comes under military export controls, like cryptography does in some places. I guess with the correct paperwork they could continue distributing these plans.
Re: (Score:2)
They were exporting weapons designs.
I can assume the bureaucrats decided to shut this down now before it developed into a real industry that would compete with the current arms market.
If they let something like this slide. A generous estimate is that 25 years down the road a large syndicate of weapons designers could be operating out of the U.S.
Now I wonder how this applies to youtube videos on how to forge your own steel knives?
Re: (Score:2)
So if I tell you how to make a shotgun out of parts from homedepot is that ITAR controlled information?
They were exporting speech, that is it. Just a set of instructions.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait for it ... (Score:3)
Streisand Effect!
Very fast (Score:3)
A couple of hours ago i downloaded and printed a design from that site. I also proved why this is a gigantic non-issue: getting a good print from a 3d printer is very involved. The machines need a lot of fiddling to get them working right. My magazine, which was supposed to be flat bottomed, had a distinctive curve to it that did not make for a good working part.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like you need to use a bit of hairspray on your hotplate [thingiverse.com], you had lifting.
Due process (Score:3)
Wasn't there something about due process in some document or other somewhere? Something about a warrant needed before the government can take action?
I can understand taking action as part of the legal process - confiscating evidence as part of filing for criminal charges, for instance. But can the government simply act unilaterally with no oversight? Has it always been this way?
Is it always "government does what it wants with no oversight, and the victim has to get the courts involved?"
Seems like that might be a good change to be included in the next constitution.
Truly Absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I could see it being a problem simply because they are plastic. Think of all of the places where you have to pass through metal detectors for security. This "gun" will not set off a detector (unless the maker was kind enough to include the chunk of metal designed to set off detectors).
Desperate people may not care that the gun isn't very safe or usable; all it takes is one bullet to assassinate someone, one bullet to kill somebody in a prison, one bullet to hijack a plane (maybe not quite doable o
Well I guess that settles it, the internet (Score:5, Funny)
.... is now free of information on building a gun.
http://www.amazon.com/Homemade-Guns-And-Ammo/dp/158160677X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368132669 [amazon.com]
Oh hey
It's a ruse (Score:2)
I absolutely do not think that this will end up being an ITAR restricted item. However, it does seem to provide politicians enough time to cram through some poorly thought out legislation creating an outright ban on them.
Can't we wait for this tech...` (Score:3)
...to become a bit more ubiquitous before we start alarming politicians into making it illegal by using it to manufacture weapons?
We don't want 3D printing to become "isn't that how people make plastic guns?" to the lay public. It's too important of a technology, and given how potentially disruptive it is to the business models of a lot of large companies with a shit ton of money, you can bet that people are already talking about how to get rid of it.
So please, if you must design guns for 3D printers, keep the designs private until the public is familiar enough with the technology that they won't buy the alarmist "O NOES, GUNS" excuse that politicians will invariably use to keep people from buying 3D printers.
Here's the letter DEFCAD got from the DoS... (Score:5, Informative)
United States Department of State
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
Offense of Defense Trade Controls Compliance
May 08, 2013
In reply letter to DTCC Case: 13-0001444
[Cody Wilson's address redacted]
Dear Mr. Wilson,
The Department of State, Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Enforcement Division (DTCC/END) is responsible for compliance with and civil enforcement of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) (AECA) and the AECA’s implementing regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 C.F.R. Parts 120-130) (ITAR). The AECA and the ITAR impose certain requirements and restrictions on the transfer of, and access to, controlled defense articles and related technical data designated by the United States Munitions List (USML) (22 C.F.R. Part 121).
The DTCC/END is conducting a review of technical data made publicly available by Defense Distributed through its 3D printing website, DEFCAD.org, the majority of which appear to be related to items in Category I of the USML. Defense Distributed may have released ITAR-controlled technical data without the required prior authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), a violation of the ITAR.
Technical data regulated under the ITAR refers to information required for the design, development, production, manufacture, assembly, operation, repair, testing, maintenance or modification of defense articles, including information in the form of blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation. For a complete definition of technical data, see 120.10 of the ITAR. Pursuant to 127.1 of the ITAR, it is unlawful to export any defense article or technical data for which a license or written approval is required without first obtaining the required authorization from the DDTC. Please note that disclosing (including oral or visual disclosure) or tranferring technical data to a foreign person, whether in the United States or abroad, is considered an export under 120.17 of the ITAR.
The Department believes Defense Distributed may not have established the proper jurisdiction of the subject technical data. To resolve this matter officially, we request that Defense Distributed submit Commodity Jurisdiction (CJ) determination requests for the following selection of data files available on DEFCAD.org, and any other technical data for which Defense Distributed is unable to determine proper jurisdiction:
1.Defense Distributed Liberator pistol
2..22 electric
3.125mm BK-14M high-explosive anti-tank warhead
4.5.56/.223 muzzle brake
5.Springfield XD-40 tactical slide assembly
6.Sound Moderator – slip on
7.“The Dirty Diane” 1/2-28 to 3/4-16 STP S3600 oil filter silencer adapter
8.12 gauge to .22 CB sub-caliber insert
9.Voltlock electronic black powder system
10.VZ-58 sight
DTCC/END requests that Defense Distributed submits its CJ requests within three weeks of the receipt of this letter and notify this office of the final CJ determinations. All CJ requests must be submitted electronically through an online application using the DS-4076 Commodity Jurisdiction Request Form. The form, guidance for submitting CJ requests, and other relevant information such as a copy of the ITAR can be found on DDTC’s website at http://www.pmddtc.state.gov./ [pmddtc.state.gov]
Until the Department provides Defense Distributed with the final CJ determinations, Defense Distributed should treat the above technical data as ITAR-controlled. This means that all such data shoudl be removed form public access immediately. Defense Distributed should also review the remainder of the data made public on its website to determine whether any additional data may be similarly controlled and proceed according to ITAR requirements.
Additionally, DTCC/END requests information about the procedures Defense Distributed follows to d
"This T-Shirt is a Munition" (Score:5, Informative)
Basically, the shirts had RSA as implemented in 3 lines of unreadable-even-for-perl code, which at the time was illegal to export in machine-readable format (Thanks, ITAR!). I believe there were multiple variations, including barcode versions for extra-crunchy machine-readability and at least one person who attempted to turn himself into a munition by getting it tattooed on. Later on there was a similar movement around DeCSS (not "munitions" related); I still have at least one of the shirts from that.
Seems to me that this is pretty clearly in the same general category.
Oh, and "damn kids"
Re:Oh, don't worry! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't government. The problem is the passive, benighted electorate that tolerates it. We, as a population, get the government we deserve.
Re: (Score:3)
Not voting is voting to be a sheep.
Re:hidden weapons (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you have made an NFA weapon. You will need a tax stamp and lots of paperwork. It will take about 6-8 months for you to get that approval.
Not getting such paperwork will mean you lose the right to own weapons and get to spend many years in a correctional facility.
Re: (Score:2)
That would already be governed in the US by the National Firearms Act, as an AOW (Any Other Weapon). Making one without paying a tax is a 10 year federal felony.
Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer (Score:5, Insightful)
It's treason to plot the violent overthow of your own government.
Trash talk is hardly a plot. Absent specific and concrete plans to do what you say, there can't be any charges for what he says. Otherwise we'll have abandoned Freedom of Speech, at which point the overthrow would be a good idea.
Re: (Score:3)
It's treason to plot the violent overthow of your own government.
That may be the case... However. Let me introduce to to a little thing we call US History.
Re: (Score:3)
You're assuming this wasn't part of the plan.
What pushes his ideology farther along the path, puttering away in semi-obscurity on his website, or invoking the full speed and fury of the internet's anti-censorship reflexes and spreading these files so far and wide they'll be easily available forever?
Re: (Score:2)
Huh, someone should have told those folks back in 1775 about that.