Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Government Build Technology

Proposed Regulation Could Keep 3D-printed Gun Blueprints Offline For Good 423

SonicSpike sends a report on a proposed update to the International Traffic in Arms (ITAR) regulations which could shut down the sharing of files for 3D printed gun parts over the internet. "Hidden within the proposal, which restricts what gear, technology, and info can and cannot be exported out of the U.S., is a ban on posting schematics for 3D printed gun parts online." This follows a lawsuit from Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed back in May fighting the federal government's command to remove blueprints for the "Liberator" 3D-printed gun from their website. A senior official at the U.S. State Department said, "By putting up a digital file, that constitutes an export of the data. If it's an executable digital file, any foreign interests can get a hold of it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Proposed Regulation Could Keep 3D-printed Gun Blueprints Offline For Good

Comments Filter:
  • by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @10:24AM (#50053913)

    All Constitutional issues aside (Free Speech, Prior Restraint, etc.) They can't keep details of their spying program out of the news. They expect to prevent people from exchanging these documents?

    • by delt0r ( 999393 )
      Because they just don't get it. They still think it is "their" internet.

      But really i don't get the big deal anyway. It is not like its that hard to make a gun with a half decent set of tools anyway. But why bother when you get just go to the store to get one. Or if its commit a crime, pay slightly more for a "reported stolen" gun.
      • by Orange Crush ( 934731 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @11:04AM (#50054239)
        More importantly, they think it' s"their" government and they forget who it is they're supposed to be working for.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 06, 2015 @11:16AM (#50054347)

          They know who they're working for: the One Percenters.

          • by TheCarp ( 96830 )

            Do you have any idea how much better shape we would be in if this was actually true? The 1%ers are the middle management who work for the people that this government actually works for. More like the 1%ers of the 1%ers.

        • That's exactly the problem we're facing. More and more people consider it "their" government. Not "ours". Not something that represents them.

          And that's dangerous.

      • How is 3D printing enabling anyone?

        If you wanted to make your own gun. Any Joe Smo with a garage workshop could make one, even without a 3D Printer. A bench drill, with a metal drilling bit, and some metal cutting and welding tools. is enough for someone to make their own gun. And just like a 3D printed model. It may not be the safest or relabel gun. But it can get the job done.

        • Yes, but you would need plans, and transmitting plans on te internet will be illegal.
        • *Takes out Items To Ban List*

          So what you're saying is we also need to ban bench drills, metal drilling bits, and metal cutting and welding tools as well.

          (The sad part is that I'm joking but all too many people would say this completely seriously.)

        • by delt0r ( 999393 )
          Isn't that what i said?
      • by Faust6 ( 4161211 )
        Methinks this is mostly to protect gun manufacturers' interest in the market.
      • Didn't Phil Zimmerman already resolve an issue exactly like this? The US government said PGP was a munition and was banned from export, so he argued that he could print the source code in a book and mail it overseas, and since it was in book form it was explicitly spelled out in the constitution as protected speech.

        Snippet:

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

        While the constitution do

    • by kheldan ( 1460303 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @10:55AM (#50054175) Journal
      Exactly. Remember USENET? Used to be that if you wanted something to never be forgotten, all you had to do was upload it to USENET, and you were more or less assured that it would be impossible to erradicate it completely. So it goes with this: the digital genie is already out of the bottle. If there are 3D printed gun files on the Internet at any point in time, it's now impossible to supress it, as impossible as trying to prevent filesharing of any other kind is. You can make all the laws you want, threaten people all you want, but just like Mr. Universe said: "You can't stop the signal, Mal.". Also just like non-3D printed guns, if you outlaw 3D printed guns, then only outlaws will have 3D printed guns. Stop wasting taxpayer money.
      • then only outlaws will have 3D printed guns/

        I know ! It is a ploy to have outlaw use crappy gun more likely to explode in their hand than a normal gun ! *slow clap* that is a great idea.

    • by Darth Muffin ( 781947 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @11:36AM (#50054561) Homepage
      If I put out plans for a screw or a pin, is that a gun part? A tube? A box? Spring?
      Would the trigger on plans for a garden sprayer be illegal?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 06, 2015 @10:25AM (#50053915)

    Making it illegal to transmit data put an immediate end to software piracy. I don't see why it can't work here as well.

    • by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @11:00AM (#50054199)

      Making it illegal to transmit data put an immediate end to software piracy. I don't see why it can't work here as well.

      Hey, while we are at it, let's outlaw murder and rape too... Oh wait... What is already illegal?

      • They will probably have limits on the "commercial" 3D printers that consumers purchase. So it will be a hindrance for the Average Joe but not for the geek or committed bad guy.

        If you ever noticed, you can't scan in the images of money into Adobe PhotoShop either. Well, that is -- an ENTIRE bill cannot be scanned. You can however, scan it in two parts, and then assemble them in PhotoShop.

        So it may be that nobody in the future will be able to print a gun (with off the rack 3D printers) but they'll print out a

    • Making it illegal to transmit data put an immediate end to software piracy. I don't see why it can't work here as well.

      It'll work - just like the ban on exporting strong encryption worked.

  • Quick! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CanHasDIY ( 1672858 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @10:28AM (#50053935) Homepage Journal

    Somebody put the genie back in the bottle!!!

  • Crappy precedent... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @10:30AM (#50053949)

    If we start banning content because it could be a violation of INTERNATIONAL export...cue the Great US Firewall.

  • Of course it will (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @10:31AM (#50053961) Homepage

    Proposed Regulation Could Keep 3D-printed Gun Blueprints Offline For Good

    Yep. And drug laws totally eliminated illegal drugs, prostitution laws totally eliminated prostitution, etc.

    Come on, people. This is the stupidest headline I've read in awhile. If laws actually had magical powers like that it would be irrelevant since there's already a law against using a gun to murder someone.

    • by delt0r ( 999393 )
      But out of those making prostitution illegal is the stupidest of the lot.

      Situation 1, i go to a bar, find a girl that wants nice things for a night and puts out for it.
      Situation 2, Some girl wants extra cash and finds a porn movie studio, gets paid for sex.
      Situation 3, someone you don't find too objectionable offers X dollars for a shag, and you aggree.

      Why would anyone think that 3 is soo different from the rest? What is gained by making it illegal.
    • It's even more pointless considering that digital files are practically impossible to contain already (see the Pirate Bay) and that information can be encoded in any format a person cares to use and encryption or other techniques can be used on top of that to make it even more difficult to stop. Use some stegonography and suddenly that cute picture of a kitten contains the necessary data to reconstruct the banned content assuming you also have the necessary function to decode the hidden data.

      At least wit
  • by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @10:34AM (#50053977) Journal

    The goal, of course, is not to prevent this stuff from getting out -- people will sneak it out trivially and host it outside the US. And state-level agency, or large terrorist organizations, could just send legal (on the surface anyway) visitors to pick it up, if they wanted to, which they don't.

    The goal is to intimidate the makers of such designs. Arrest first and ask questions later, when such designs get out. I wonder how they will take that intimidation?

    • Arrest first and ask questions later, when such designs get out. I wonder how they will take that intimidation?

      Doesn't matter. Only thing matters is how deep your pockets are retaining competent legal counsel. Usually your pockets run out before the government's, unfortunately.

    • by tsqr ( 808554 )

      F14 is largely declassified

      The security classification of an item really isn't relevant. Although it would be an ITAR violation to export classified data, there are countless non-classified items on the ITAR list.

      The goal, of course, is not to prevent this stuff from getting out -- people will sneak it out trivially and host it outside the US.

      Sneaking ITAR-controlled data out and hosting it outside the US constitutes an "export". If the perpetrator is caught, they are subject to extremely onerous fines and federal imprisonment.

      And state-level agency, or large terrorist organizations, could just send legal (on the surface anyway) visitors to pick it up, if they wanted to, which they don't.

      ITAR doesn't work that way. Allowing foreign visitors, regardless of their legal status, to "pick up" ITAR-controlled data is an "export".

  • ITAR would apply mainly to USA, question is whether through ACTA-like actions they would impose it on the World?

  • by Totenglocke ( 1291680 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @10:41AM (#50054025)
    They tried this with encryption methods and the result was to simply print it out and publish it as a book, then it became an irrefutable 1st Amendment issue. Idiot politicians never learn.
  • Not only are there many people who will continue to share such documents on peer to peer networks, but also it may surprise our Wise and Venerable Legislators to learn that there are foreign web hosts not subject to US law. You can't really ban anything from the internet or keep anything "offline".
    • You realize that the Wise and Venerable Legislators are OK with drone strikes against foreign countries right?

  • Foreign interests? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @10:41AM (#50054029)

    By putting up a digital file, that constitutes an export of the data. If it's an executable digital file, any foreign interests can get a hold of it."

    Right. Because in countries where you can trade a goat for a fully automatic AK-47 or even an RPK, people are instead going to download and print a flimsy, crappy piece of plastic that can shoot maybe 10 rounds before blowing your hand off. And in any case, they make much better weapons in caves [wikipedia.org] than what this guy is making.

    • by fuzznutz ( 789413 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @10:59AM (#50054193)
      You miss the big picture. 3D printed guns are in their infancy. The powers-that-be are scared shitless that 3D printed guns will EVENTUALLY be way better than your conventional home built firearms.
      • by harrkev ( 623093 ) <kevin.harrelson@ ... om minus painter> on Monday July 06, 2015 @11:14AM (#50054327) Homepage

        And you miss the bigger picture. Making it illegal for an honest citizen to print a 3D gun will not stop the criminals from doing it.

        That is the biggest problem with gun control -- criminals do not obey laws.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Of course criminals obey laws, what a stupid comment. You go around not obeying any laws and you see how long you last. The point of criminality is to benefit the criminal - he does this by breaking laws selectively, not by constantly flagging himself to every passing police officer. If you have to break laws just to prepare for a crime, it makes the crime harder to commit. Don't condescend about the "bigger picture" when you're missing fundamental basics like these, or live in a dream world where all c

  • Yay, 'murica! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @10:41AM (#50054031) Homepage Journal

    This will be extremely effective, because no other nation in the world could possibly come up with a 3D-printer blueprint for producing gun parts. :P

    • by Kohath ( 38547 )

      It's not about any other country. The goal of the regulation is to prevent Americans from having access to 3D printed guns and to intimidate any American who would design one of these guns.

      The best answer is for people outside the US to create these designs and post them online.

  • by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @10:47AM (#50054083)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by bobbied ( 2522392 )

      So, lets get this straight... You are for people out in the country being able to print parts for their guns because getting parts might be hard? Um, so if they cannot mail order gun parts, where on earth are they going to get a 3D printer and supplies to run it?

      The rest of your post is 100% not original thinking but pabulum rhetoric from the Anti-Gun crowd. Of course gun laws don't stop bad guys from using guns in bad ways, new laws will have the same problem, only the law abiding will follow them, bad

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by PraiseBob ( 1923958 )
        ONE gun in the hands of a ordinary citizen in the movie theater, could have prevented many deaths.

        Yes, of course, you've figured it all out. Because an asshole who decides exactly when he can spring an ambush on unsuspecting people, hiding behind cover & wearing body armor, can instantly be taken out by an average handgun holder. Seriously?

        You are aware that highly trained and experienced soldiers almost always fail and die under those circumstances right? The shooter has more firepower, bette
    • It wont make a difference.

      I dont need a 3d printer to make a gun!

      I drill press and some angle iron to make a jig and I can produce produce AK47's all day long.

      Best part is, guns made at home dont have to be registered and the parts that you order to make them dont have a background check. Meaning As long as I make the receiver for my own personal use (that's the part with the serial number and the part that legally constitutes a gun) then I don't have to serial number it, it does not have to be registered,

    • by harrkev ( 623093 )

      So, short of hiring a psychic to predict future crime, what else do you suggest as far as a background check? Do you have a criminal record? Have you been declared mentally incompetent?

      Anything beyond that is a judgement call, and who gets to make that call? On what basis?

      Keep in mind that every year, less than one out of every 30,000 gun is used in a murder.

    • by Kohath ( 38547 )

      wholesale gun violence in the united states as a manifestation of the permanent race based caste and class system inequality in the united states..

      Once Obama finally becomes President, that will be solved and the racial healing can begin.

  • by GoddersUK ( 1262110 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @10:54AM (#50054159)

    PGP: Source Code and Internals - Phil Zimmerman [amazon.co.uk] - books have 1A protection. So I have no doubt we'll soon see "The Liberator: Source Plans and Internals - Cody Wilson".

    Also, WTF does "If it's an executable digital file, any foreign interests can get a hold of it" mean? Is ISIS unable to use non-executable files?

  • Yeah, because a piece of paper pinched out by the government is going to stop people from sharing information.

    3D-printed gun blueprints are on the Pirate Bay (for example [thepiratebay.mn]). They're hosted on overseas websites. When the first story about the government forcing the author to take down the DefDist package came out, I made copies and posted them to six different domains I own (for example [eprci.net]). If this regulation passes, I, and I'm sure plenty of other people, will step up their efforts to spread such files wider a

  • by Sand_Man ( 81150 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @11:02AM (#50054223)

    That should take care of it once and for all then. Glad that's resolved. (insert obligatory face-palm here)

  • Posting photos of weapons will be come illegal - someone might reason out how to file some metal and make one. Goodbye gun mags.
    Followed soon by making it illegal to describe in print how to make a weapon .. because, same thing.
    Followed then by making it illegal to mention when a weapon is used, even in self defense - "it just promotes 'bad think'".
    Followed by making it illegal to use a weapon in self defense, because - oh wait, hello United Kingdom.
    Followed by making it illegal to use the word "we
  • by locofungus ( 179280 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @11:34AM (#50054535)

    So two people, independently, publish files of random numbers.

    It just so happens that when the two files are XORed together you get the plans for a gun (or any other "restricted" file)

    Who are you going to prosecute? After all, anybody can publish files of random numbers. Only one of the two needs to be "constructed" and it's impossible to determine which one is the "artificial" one.

  • They also tried to prevent open source encryption software from being posted to the internet using ITAR as well. Look how well that turned out.
  • I think it shows just how unreasonable the anti-gunners can be that they would use weapons export regulations against the sharing of 3d printed gun designs.

    If I were in the Pentagon or Homeland Security (theatre) I would ENCOURAGE the export of 3d printed gun designs. Let the enemy blow their own hands and faces off with their plastic guns! Hell, let domestic criminals do the same!

    Meanwhile law abiding gun users can just buy them or make them on lathes. Personally I may just try to 3d print a gun some day

  • by T.E.D. ( 34228 ) on Monday July 06, 2015 @02:03PM (#50056013)

    This has nothing to do specifically with guns, 3D or otherwise.

    This appears to be a change to ITAR to define making files available for download as part of the law. This has long been a work-around that multiple people in my company at least have pointed out was stupid during ITAR training: If I install software on my laptop I have to go through ITAR with it, but if I leave it on a server at work and access it remotely from Europe, not ITAR. There are still laws, mind you, but they are different laws. Fixing this, while annoying to some, at least makes the law make a bit more sense.

    So where do guns come into this? As near as I can tell, only because this story is on Fox news, and they can't get their 80-to-dead audience excited about "Obummer" by griping about internet files.

    Political clickbait.

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...