Slashdot Mirror


DoD Descends On DEFCAD

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!)

44 of 496 comments (clear)

  1. Well there ya go by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Glad to see that the first amendment is so inviolable...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Well there ya go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First amendment only applies to our corporate overlords.

    2. Re:Well there ya go by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, the first amendment speaks about the right to bear arms, not about the right to make arms.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:Well there ya go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Much like the second amendment protecting you from unreasonable search and seisure and giving women the right to vote.

    4. Re:Well there ya go by Anonymous Coward · · 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

    5. Re:Well there ya go by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    6. Re:Well there ya go by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Informative

      Press is free for those as own one.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    7. Re:Well there ya go by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a zip gun not some wonder weapon. How the hell is this a defense article?

    8. Re:Well there ya go by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

      1st amendment + 2 amendment = right to print arms

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    9. Re:Well there ya go by shentino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sadly, it's a defense article because the DoD fucking said so.

    10. Re:Well there ya go by Anonymous Coward · · 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
      firearms to caliber .50 inclusive (12.7 mm).
      * (b) Fully automatic firearms to .50 caliber
      inclusive (12.7 mm).

    11. Re:Well there ya go by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To paraphrase the fictional Dr. Ian Malcolm:

      "Tyranny finds a way".

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    12. Re:Well there ya go by WWJohnBrowningDo · · Score: 5, Funny

      You have 10+ posts in this thread alone...

      Says the guy who makes 100 posts in every thread.

    13. Re:Well there ya go by chiefmojorising · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're one to talk, Anonymous Coward. I see you posting here all the time!

    14. Re:Well there ya go by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  2. The horse has left the barn... by bfmorgan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These files have been available for a day and have propagated to many other sites. So much for control.

    --
    I hope this caused some synapses to fire.
    1. Re:The horse has left the barn... by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, 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.

    2. Re:The horse has left the barn... by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 3, 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.

    3. Re:The horse has left the barn... by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I could, or I could just buy parts or a lathe like a normal person.

  3. wtf by Aryden · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:wtf by Darth+Snowshoe · · Score: 4, Informative

      ITAR. It's called ITAR.

    2. Re:wtf by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's actually (allegedly) the Department of State. DEFCAD got their bureaucracy wrong. Would be awesome to get the headline corrected.

  4. Uh, no. by neoshroom · · Score: 5, Informative

    Uh, no, it doesn't. The first amendment is the right to free speech. The second amendment is the right to bear 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 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.

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    1. Re:Uh, no. by Prien715 · · Score: 3, 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?

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    2. Re:Uh, no. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, 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.

    3. Re:Uh, no. by jkyrlach · · Score: 4, Informative

      Um, Hillary is actually not currently in Govt. any more; John Kerry now runs the State Department.

    4. Re:Uh, no. by ClioCJS · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Instructions for creating nuclear bomb are a google away.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  5. Truly Absurd by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are plenty of parts of the world where they don't have electricity or indoor plumbing, but you can get a local gunsmith to bang out a good copy of an AK-47 (the skills of these guys w/ simple hand tools amazes me, even if I'm not always thrilled w/ their customers). But design files for a plastic zip gun threaten national security?

  6. Pretty sure... by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...most of congress, along with scotus, suffers from reasonable seizures. It's from the bill of blights, supported by executive disorder.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  7. Well I guess that settles it, the internet by Grimbleton · · Score: 4, Funny
  8. Re:Oh, don't worry! by some+old+guy · · 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.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  9. That's not at all the point by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, 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.

  10. Re:hidden weapons by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, 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.

  11. Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer by ebno-10db · · 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.

  12. Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 3

    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.

  13. Direct download link?? by zidium · · 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

    --
    Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    1. Re:Direct download link?? by crutchy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      apparently the state department hasn't heard of the Streisand effect either

  14. Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, 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.

  15. Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    You do realize the "clear and present danger" test was originally created to justify jailing people for protesting against WWI, 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, 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.

  16. Here's the letter DEFCAD got from the DoS... by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 4, 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./

    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

  17. Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
  18. Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too by 1729 · · Score: 3, 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 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.

  19. "This T-Shirt is a Munition" by Fencepost · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know that you're all young whippersnappers who should get off my damn lawn, but does nobody remember the RSA Perl T-Shirts from Joel Furr from back in 1995? Yeah, yeah, most of you weren't out of kindergarten, whatever.

    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"

    --
    fencepost
    just a little off