Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Laws Restricting Tech Actually Expose Us To Greater Harm

Posted by Soulskill on from the defective-by-design dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Cory Doctorow has an article in Wired explaining why crafting laws to restrict software is going to hurt us in the long run. The reason? Because we're on an irreversible trajectory toward integrating technology with our cars and houses, bodies and brains. If we don't control the software, then at some point, we won't control parts of our homes and our selves. Doctorow writes, "Any law or regulation that undermines computers' utility or security also ripples through all the systems that have been colonized by the general-purpose computer. And therein lies the potential for untold trouble and mischief.

Code always has flaws, and those flaws are easy for bad guys to find. But if your computer has deliberately been designed with a blind spot, the bad guys will use it to evade detection by you and your antivirus software. That's why a 3-D printer with anti-gun-printing code isn't a 3-D printer that won't print guns—the bad guys will quickly find a way around that. It's a 3-D printer that is vulnerable to hacking by malware creeps who can use your printer's 'security' against you: from bricking your printer to screwing up your prints to introducing subtle structural flaws to simply hijacking the operating system and using it to stage attacks on your whole network."

116 comments

  1. Start with copyright by sinij · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Start with copyright and patents - these are by far most harmful regulatory areas that hold back our progress.

    Still, not all regulation is bad. We could use more rules safeguarding our privacy. Presently, it is 'loot and pillage' with every Dick, Tom, and Harry from the Silicon Valley trying to insert themselves in the middle and start tracking you.

    1. Re:Start with copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Start with copyright and patents - these are by far most harmful regulatory areas that hold back our progress.

      (-1 Overrated) Once again the truth is being modded down (and with the most bogus of all, 'overrated') by gullible idiots.

    2. Re:Start with copyright by some+old+guy · · Score: 2

      We had such rules once. I think we called them the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

      They used to work pretty good, until we started allowing the will of the Military Industrial Complex and Wall Street to supplant the will of the people.

      Those were the days, my friend. We thought they'd never end.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    3. Re:Start with copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Still, not all regulation is bad. We could use more rules safeguarding our privacy. Presently, it is 'loot and pillage' with every Dick, Tom, and Harry from the Silicon Valley trying to insert themselves in the middle and start tracking you.

      I agree in theory; however, in practice what would happen is that the government would hamfistedly attempt to ban businesses from tracking while also instituting a tracking regime of their own. Are you seriously suggesting that we grant more powers to history's most intrusive tracking regime... in order to protect us from being tracked? The irony is too rich. What the USA is doing today with tracking is more than the Gestapo or Stasi could have ever dreamed. Excuse me if I don't believe these are the "good guys" to whom we should entrust more power.

      So, if you manage to find a way we can accomplish your stated goal without giving more power to the government, I will wholeheartedly support your initiative.

    4. Re:Start with copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically, the post-war years were the most plentiful and represented the rise of the American middle class (possibly due to the rest of the world being dead). Now we're back to pre-WWI asset distribution.

    5. Re:Start with copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had such rules once. I think we called them the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

      They used to work pretty good, until we started allowing the will of the Military Industrial Complex and Wall Street to supplant the will of the people.

      Those were the days, my friend. We thought they'd never end.

      A classic run of Slashdot glittering generalities. Hey, you forgot to mention that both political parties are corrupt, which the mods like because then they imagine the post is unbiased.

    6. Re:Start with copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, everyone should be able to take other people's creations and sell them as their own.

    7. Re:Start with copyright by plopez · · Score: 1

      In the US it would require a Constitutional Amendment to remove them completely.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    8. Re:Start with copyright by ITRambo · · Score: 0

      They worked well for white male landowners. Everyone else was either legally 3/5 human or a second class citizen. Technology has evolved such that everyone can now utilize it to a great extent.. People haven't really changed though.

    9. Re:Start with copyright by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      3/5ths was about proportionment of representation among the states, not the treatment of individuals. The problem was the existence of states where non-free persons were not eligible to vote, so any proportionment of representation made on their behalf was exercised by the free, land-owning male citizens.

      If you think disenfranchisement is unfair, how do you feel about disenfranchisement that grants your own deserved electoral power to the very parties that are oppressing you?

      3/5ths was a compromise, but its fundamental unfairness was not that it was too low, but too high. States with non-free populations should never have been rewarded with the ability to exercise electoral power of the people they oppressed.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    10. Re:Start with copyright by sjames · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that? The Constitution permits copyright to exist (for the advancement of the useful arts) but does not mandate it.

    11. Re:Start with copyright by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      Start with copyright and patents - these are by far most harmful regulatory areas that hold back our progress.

      The problem isn't with copyright. The problem is with additional laws that restrict the development, trade, or perhaps even possession of technology or software which may have the ability to circumvent technical schemes designed to protect copyright. Such restrictions often have unintended (or intended, but bad) consequences.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    12. Re:Start with copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, the mere existence of the 3/5th Clause legitimized slavery, as was the practice of selective voting rights in general.

      So would the Dred Scott Decision, a travesty of legal reasoning that was almost as reprehensible as Plessy v. Ferguson

    13. Re:Start with copyright by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      In other words, you're one of those "the past was always better than the present" people that another slashdot article mentioned.

      Here's a little dose of reality: Until about 150 years ago, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government; the state governments could do whatever they wanted, including censorship, banning religions, etc. In fact, in the early days of the US, some states didn't allow ANYBODY to vote for the federal government. In New York for example, the state government decided by itself what representatives to send, what electors to send, etc.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    14. Re:Start with copyright by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That was because the rules were only applied in favor of white males. As written, however, they work quite well where the population is thinly distributed and the communications are slow. They aren't perfect, but I can't think of anything better.

      As things are, however, those rules would not work and could not be made to work. They should, however, have been properly ammended rather than being ignored.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    15. Re:Start with copyright by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Right. That, after all was the purpose of copyright. To give people a *LIMITED* monopoly. When it expired, then everyone would inherit the work as a common good.

      I would argue that 17 years is too long. 5 years with one (fairly expensive) renewal would be better, though the ideal number does differ between fields of endeavor. I could also go with a 3 year first copyright, a renewal for, say, $100. And an nth renewal for $100^n. (You could consider the original publication to be the 0th renewal if you want, and charge a $1 registration fee needed if you intend to apply for any renewals.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  2. Need new hat tech by Lije+Baley · · Score: 1

    Tin foil just won't do it anymore.

    --
    Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
  3. You can't so it is point less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3d printer can not detect gun parts. Anymore than a/d converters can detect copyrighted songs. You can pass a law, but there is no technology to support it.

    1. Re:You can't so it is point less by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, but 3d printers need some input. Only allow corporate, sorry, government approved input and we're good to go.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:You can't so it is point less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Around 1999-2000, there were a ton of initiatives and little companies springing up to create DRM and watermarking. While the MP3 player companies were trying to work on DRM. All that DRM fussing by various companies was all for naught when Apple seized the MP3 player market with an initially DRM-free device (well, other than the file name obfuscation.)

      Trying to lock out gun parts would be a cat and mouse game. People would make 3D printed molds, then do the final product using epoxy or a resin, with the 3D parts providing the negative image. Others would break parts up into pieces and the DRM software would have to figure out what circle, square, and triangle, when assembled, would make a lower receiver. Even people can't do that ("The Man With the Golden Gun" is one example.)

      Even if some company made an algorithm that would identify a gun part 100% of the time with no false positives or negatives, there would be places out of China that would offer mod chips to bypass that functionality, so even that would be pointless.

      Of course, there will be detractors who will say no effort is perfect, but there are things that will work 90% of the time, and then there are things that will just have blowback. What needs to be done is to focus on Hollywood's gun culture (where a guy with a firearm is a hero or a magic villain... not just a guy with a firearm), as opposed to outright bans, as outright bans have failed (Prohibition and the War on Drugs have taught us that.) As of now, a ban or other ill-intended regulations won't help things. It will backfire, creating black market gangs (who will be the ONLY people armed in a lot of areas) that will make the Mexican drug lords and Mafia look tame in comparison... because these guys have the heat, and nobody else does.

    3. Re:You can't so it is point less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3d printer can not detect gun parts. Anymore than a/d converters can detect copyrighted songs. You can pass a law, but there is no technology to support it.

      Just like laser copiers can't detect money.

  4. Not hard to fix... just up the ante... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take anti-currency counterfeitting measures in printers and copiers. By companies having signatures and drivers that actually warn the EU or Secret Service when an attempt at counterfeitting a current occours, the use of color printers for trying to pass fakes notes has all but been stopped.

    Same with gun printing. All it would take it a regulation that 3D printers can only print signed documents, and have some vetting committee set up, and this could just be a private organization whose job it is to eyeball something, see it isn't a gun, and sign it. Done right, gun printing would be stopped in its tracks. Add some hefty penalties for possession of 3D printed gun parts (even the rednecks don't modify their stuff to be fully auto because they know the BATF would lock them up for life), and the job is done.

    1. Re:Not hard to fix... just up the ante... by oodaloop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unlike making your own money, it is perfectly legal (in the US anyway) to make your own gun, 3d printed or otherwise. Selling it may be illegal, but it's not like there's gangs toting 3d printed guns roaming the streets just yet.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Not hard to fix... just up the ante... by twitnutttt · · Score: 1

      Block all home-made designs and do-it-yourself makers?! That's where the potential of 3d printing revolution lies!!! Required "signed" documents only and you cripple that.

      Besides, we've seen these signature certificates compromised time and time again (SSL, code signing, et al.).

    3. Re:Not hard to fix... just up the ante... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If it stopped at gun printing... but you know, we have this tech in place to keep people from printing guns, why can't we keep them from printing those trademarked (or patented, whatever) car parts? There's a business to protect here!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Not hard to fix... just up the ante... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All it would take it a regulation that 3D printers can only print signed documents,

      So last weekend when I modeled and printed a replacement shelf support bracket for one that had gone missing, I'd be out of luck?

      (Yeah, it probably took longer to model and print it than the part was worth ... but now I have the model if I need it again, and I saved myself a one of time driving around to hardware stores looking for an exact replacement, or the expense of replacing them all so they matched. And I needed the practise.)

      What's next, only allowing 2D printers to print signed documents to prevent copyright infringement? Or prevent samizdat?

    5. Re: Not hard to fix... just up the ante... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who think like you scare me greatly with your anti freedom attitudes. If you're an American, let me say that I'm ashamed to have you in my country.

    6. Re: Not hard to fix... just up the ante... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So ashamed posts as Anonymous Coward. Yeah, you've got the high ground.

    7. Re:Not hard to fix... just up the ante... by mlts · · Score: 2

      All and all, it is interesting watching the 3D printer market evolve. Other than the issue of currency copying when color inkjets became cheap, there has been no DRM or demand for it linked to documents. Ink cartridges, yes, but not actual preventing of documents being copied.

      Other markets, not so lucky. For example, all the fighting and wrangling about MP3s, which resulted in casualties (for example, Diamond won... but that was a Pyrrhic victory.) Video pretty much was a victory for the DRM brigade [1].

      3D printing looks like it is going the way of 2D printing, except for this "OMG, GUNS!" drivel [2]. I don't see an RIAA-like entity pushing a SDMI initiative for 3D printing, nor do I see an interest by the Powers That Be in forcing signed documents (which is actually astounding... I would have been almost certain that there would be some type of standardized DRM system by now, similar to how CarveWright DRM protects their software from computer to encrypted memory cartridge to the actual device.)

      Now, when 3D metal printing gets widespread and inexpensive, the ability to make sintered Iconel items will be quite useful, as opposed to plastic pieces which have limited uses. For example, one make of RV door handle has had issues with breaking. If just the part that breaks is replaced with a high grade sintered Iconel, it would help immensely.

      [1]: A victory as in one in the US either has DRM encumbered tracks, DRM encumbered media, or technically violates the DMCA in de-DRMing stuff like DVDs.

      [2]: I have never understood the insane overreaction about 3D printed guns. One could carve out the same thing out of a chunk of plastic, mold something out of clay and fire it in a kiln, whittle it out of wood, or many other ways to make a unsafe, unstable zip-gun, that it is pointless. In countries where guns are banned, ammo is banned as well, so making a .22 LR firearm in Japan or England is pointless... because there are no .22 rounds to be found in that neck of the woods [3]. Of course, there is the fact that in other areas of the world, real guns are likely less trouble to find and procure than a computer, a 3D printer, a good amount of filament, and trying to cobble together a prototype which likely will go kaboom in the hand, rather than bang, out the barrel.

      [3]: Technically, there are no .22 rounds to be found in this part of Texas either... but that is due to the insatiable demand, not a ban.

    8. Re:Not hard to fix... just up the ante... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Now, when 3D metal printing gets widespread and inexpensive"

      Yeah, remember when CNC machines became widespread and inexpensive? Oh, wait.

      "3D printing looks like it is going the way of 2D printing"

      You mean disappearing?

    9. Re: Not hard to fix... just up the ante... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      says the other AC sitting on his high horse.

  5. I know - let's give everyone an A-bomb! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't want to restrict tech!

    1. Re:I know - let's give everyone an A-bomb! by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

      Neither the science nor technology is the limiting factor to making an atom bomb. Both are pretty well known and easily accessible (The original a-bombs, fat man and little boy, were built back in the 40's. The technology is archaic). The limiting factor for a nuclear weapon is the pay load. Weapons grade plutonium and Uranium are not easily accessible.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    2. Re:I know - let's give everyone an A-bomb! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. You could not do the math to know whether your shaped charge would cause an implosion and detonate your payload or just explode it rendering it a dirty bomb. Obviously non-proliferation is mostly a matter of limiting fissionable material but the know how is also important.

  6. Maybe the solution is in the slicing software. by Enry · · Score: 1

    With my Printrbot, I have three steps to start printing. First I design what I want using something like OpenSCAD or download the design from somewhere online. Then I have to run it through software like Cura to turn it into something that the printer can actually use. After that I can send it to the printer for printing. Remember that the printer is really just a slightly beefed-up Arduino - it's a pretty simple device. If you were to integrate the anti-gun code into Cura the same way that anti-counterfeiting is in copiers you might have something.

    1. Re:Maybe the solution is in the slicing software. by twitnutttt · · Score: 1

      Yeah, until the AI mistakes my home-designed gun-shaped sex toy for a real gun, and I can't get off.
      Don't judge me! Different strokes for different folks.

    2. Re:Maybe the solution is in the slicing software. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The anti-counterfeiting looks for a trigger pattern. To detect guns you'd need to look for a feature which can be identified by software, is an absolutely essential part of any gun, and isn't going to be found in anything else. The obvious part is the barrel - should be possible to recognise a tube with an internal diameter matching the common round sizes and walls over a specified thickness.

    3. Re:Maybe the solution is in the slicing software. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-counterfeiting in copiers is done by the simple expedient of embedding a repeating pattern into the images on currency. The copier looks for that and refuses to print if found.

      Anti-"make-forbidden-device" in a 3D printer is a whole 'nother order of difficult, requiring some kind of AI to recognize that what's being printed might possibly be part of an actual firearm, at some point, with arbitrary parts attached. (While legally an AR-15 lower receiver is considered a "firearm" by the BATF, because that's the part with the serial number, in actuality it is just a hunk of plastic or metal without the upper, barrel, trigger assembly, buffer, etc, etc attached. For that matter, the BATF considers a specially-shaped small piece of metal or plastic to be a fully-automatic machine gun if that piece happens to be a drop-in auto-sear for said lower receiver.

      Preventing someone from making a gun (or parts thereof) on a 3D printer isn't much easier than preventing them from making a gun from a piece of pipe, a nail, some rubber bands and a piece of wood. (See also zip gun)

    4. Re:Maybe the solution is in the slicing software. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Then someone prints the barrel in two parts. The thick tube that matches no common bullet and a liner that is too thin to be a gun barrel.

    5. Re:Maybe the solution is in the slicing software. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Given the difficulties of printing a durable enough gun barrel, there's an easier way: Scour supplies. Our hypothetical youth gang aren't going to have access to a metalwork shop, but enough time searching plumbing components, metal chair legs, shower rails and anything else hollow and tubular will eventually find a decent barrel - just like the IKEA table that happens to have the exact dimensions of a 19" rack. Then they only have to print off the fiddly mechanical bit at the end that actually strikes the bullet. It doesn't even need to last more than a couple of shots, as it could be made cheap enough to be disposable.

      I can see potential for criminals to get into some real fun trying to outdo each other for the flashiest gun. Eventually someone is going to realize you can strap twenty-five barrels to one trigger and put a bullet in each for a pistol-shotgun hybrid. Impractical? Yes. Intimidating? Very yes. And it'll compensate for the imprecise aiming.

    6. Re:Maybe the solution is in the slicing software. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Just refuse to allow anyone to be named Gatling.

      (Well, I know that's not exactly a Gatling gun, but it's pretty close.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  7. Re:Conservative BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't been able to see any difference between the active parties in that regard. They all seem to want that, albeit for their own special interests.

    One party system.

  8. Security by Obscurity vs. Decompile and Understand by MarkvW · · Score: 0

    Backdoors depend upon obscurity. Once the obscurity is gone, the security is gone.

  9. "If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns!" by Lobo42 · · Score: 1

    I'm not onboard with this reasoning. Yes, deliberately placing backdoors in software is security-undermining and stupid. And any unenforcable legislation is bad legislation.

    But I not all restrictions on technology are unenforcable or bad. It is generally illegal for private individuals to make bombs. Yes, this means that the only people who make bombs are criminals, but only because you have changed the semantics to make it so. There is still less bomb-making overall by dint of bomb-making being illegal.

    I don't know if there is a correct legislative solution to the problem of 3D-printed guns or not, but we should not assume there cannot be one. The specifics of the technology are relevant.

  10. That's pretty much the idea by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're not supposed to control your appliance! If you would, you could not only fix them instead of replacing them, you could find new applications for them instead of buying another, specialized, one. And the maker could not at will end its life so you'd be buying the next one, bigger and better than your old 6 month old ancient garbage.

    It's not a bug. It's a feature.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Re:Security by Obscurity vs. Decompile and Underst by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    What security? The security of its maker against your outrageous idea of actually using something you buy the way you want?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. what is this nonsense about 3D printers and guns by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    No "bad guy" is going to waste time and money printing an expensive but soft dangerous gun that can fracture. those hobbyists that make guns use time-honored techniques and you can legally mail order a pistol barrel for $100 - 150

    Very inexpensive guns are plentiful and robust enough for firing dozens of rounds without of failure. the bad guys will use those if on a budget

  13. Re:"If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is fine that it is illegal to make bombs. The problem would be if you try to force all 3d printers to refuse to print components that might be used to make bombs. *That* is what the summary is about: trying to enforce laws by imposing design limitations on software. This approach to enforcement always backfires and causes a lot of harm.

    Even if a law is passed that makes it illegal to 3D print guns, there should not be a law that forces 3D Printer manufacturers to produce 3D printers that refuse to print components that might be used for a gun.

  14. bill of rights restricts GOVERNMENT by raymorris · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Bill of Rights is a list of things the federal government isn't allowed to do. It doesn't put any limitations on you, me or Dice. You and I can do bad things, but we can't violate the Bill of Rights because the B of R is a set of restrictions on the feds.

    Therefore, ONLY big government can violate your Constitutional rights. Businesses can make you mad, they can provide'poor customer service, but only government can violate your Constitutional rights. The reason for this? Because only government can send men with guns to enforce their will upon. Comcast you can simply cancel, and get Dish or Verizon instead.

    1. Re:bill of rights restricts GOVERNMENT by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I think part of the problem is a situation the writers of the bill of rights didn't envision: The modern communications megacorp. They certainly had megacorps of the day (The Tea Party was triggered by the East India Company using political connections to get themselves a favorable tax status and using it to undercut independant shipping companies), but they had nothing with the ability to influence public debate of something like Facebook or Google.

    2. Re:bill of rights restricts GOVERNMENT by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      The East India Company was founded in 1600. They ruled an entire subcontinent. They raised armies and waged war in their own name. The authors of the bill of rights knew about the power of corporations.

    3. Re:bill of rights restricts GOVERNMENT by jythie · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but they generally envisioned people being able to simply shoot other people if said people were exerting power against them. Then again, they also only envisioned a small percentage of the population as being 'people' which is important to keep in mind since the problems of a ruling class have generally never been the same as an underclass and thus the priorities and tools are crafted differntly.

    4. Re: bill of rights restricts GOVERNMENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This needs to be shouted from the rooftops. The Boston Tea Party was NOT about Parliment taxing the colonists' tea. It was about a TAX CUT given to a particular megacorp.

      In other words, this country's founding is rooted in a protest against corporate welfare.

      They somehow conveniently never teach that right in school.

    5. Re:bill of rights restricts GOVERNMENT by jythie · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes and no. The East India Company was a very real thing of course, but it was run by people like them to the detriment of 'not people'. Remember that most of the 'founding fathers' came from the american ruling class and wished more power. While they knew 'oppression', they knew it in the same way middle management knows it, unhappy there are people above them but still comfortably in better shape than. So when they pictured things like the East India Corp, it was a model of what people like them could do with their freedom, not something they had to fear being used against them. At most it was competition, something on their level that they would need to counter.

    6. Re:bill of rights restricts GOVERNMENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comcast you can simply cancel...

      Apparently you've never actually had to try and cancel Comcast.

    7. Re:bill of rights restricts GOVERNMENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Because only government can send men with guns to enforce their will upon.'

      I see you've never dealt with some mall cops I've run up against. Or Google the Ludlow Massacre.

    8. Re:bill of rights restricts GOVERNMENT by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      It was East India Company tea that the 'founding fathers' dumped in the ocean. And East India Company-related trade restrictions that they suffered under.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    9. Re:bill of rights restricts GOVERNMENT by khallow · · Score: 2
      I think this assertion is silly just at first glance. Most of people involved in the development of the US Constitution were not of a "ruling class" (except in the weak sense of the role they happened to be in). And their selection was by their peers, often for things such as brvery or performance in the Revolutionary War or respect.

      Further, where are the chartered corporations that these power seekers made?

      It's worth noting that we can actually look at what the founding fathers wrote and said, rather than just accepting your bit of historical revisionism. For example, Madison said of the charters of the day (in debate on whether to create a public charter, the Bank of the US:

      He waved a reply to Mr. Vining's observations on the common law, (in which that gentleman had been lengthy and minute, in order to invalidate Mr. Madison's objection to the power proposed to be given to the Bank, to make rules and regulations, not contrary to law). Mr. Madison said the question would involve a very lengthy discussion - and other objects more intimately connected with the subject, remained to be considered.

      The power of granting Charters, he observed, is a great and important power, and ought not to be exercised, without we find ourselves expressly authorised to grant them: Here he dilated on the great and extensive influence that incorporated societies had on public affairs in Europe: They are a powerful machine, which have always been found competent to effect objects on principles, in a great measure independent of the people.

      He argued against the influence of the precedent to be established by the bill - for tho it has been said that the charter is to be granted only for a term of years, yet he contended, that granting the powers on any principle, is granting them in perpetuum - and assuming this right on the part of the government involves the assumption of every power whatever.

      So there's an example of one of the most important of the founders eschewing the corporation of that time. While I imagine Madison would be dubious of today's legal fiction of "corporate personhood", he would have also resisted the formation of many of the US's current public institutions. And in the few cases where those institutions met his approval, he'd probably disapprove of their considerably enlarged scope.

      And on other end of this spectrum was Alexander Hamilton who supported a strong central government and probably wouldn't have had a major problem with much of what has been done since.

      Just like now, there was a mix of the many human opinions, vices, and virtues. To say that the founding fathers meant that or this, especially when what they supposedly meant is just a blatantly fantastical reinterpretation of their times through a modern ideological filter, is to lose understanding of them or of their times.

      Finally, though I don't see the indication that the times of the late 18th century are sufficiently different from today that we can safely ignore the purpose of the Constitution or the various dangers it was designed to forestall or mitigate.

    10. Re:bill of rights restricts GOVERNMENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this assertion is silly just at first glance

      But not so silly in subsequent glances, after one digest the idea.

      Most of people involved in the development of the US Constitution were not of a "ruling class" (except in the weak sense of the role they happened to be in).

      Being a lesser "weaker" accomplice was still being an accomplice. They may have been benevolent rulers (some of them even let their own slaves go free), but rulers they were.

      And their selection was by their peers

      Peers referring to mostly white, mostly land owning, and most certainly males, sure.

      Further, where are the chartered corporations that these power seekers made?

      Every slave owning business that operated was in a sense chartered by the power seekers. The power seekers may not have directly created and owned those businesses, but they benefited from the votes of their constituents (the slave owners). Slavery is only viable when state laws allow it. Much like how the infamous East India Company was empowered by the crown to have its own police force, slave laws empowered businesses to police their slaves. Furthermore, slave laws coerce other free men to join slave patrols. These free non-slave owning men, remember, suffer from slavery too. The existence of slavery created unfair competition for non-slave labor, much like how the East India Company was unfair competition to other British companies that didn't have the privilege of getting chartered by the crown.

      To say that the founding fathers meant that or this, especially when what they supposedly meant is just a blatantly fantastical reinterpretation of their times through a modern ideological filter, is to lose understanding of them or of their times.

      You say that, but then you insist the Constitution written by those Founders must have meant YOUR interpretation on what its purpose was?

    11. Re:bill of rights restricts GOVERNMENT by khallow · · Score: 1

      Being a lesser "weaker" accomplice was still being an accomplice. They may have been benevolent rulers (some of them even let their own slaves go free), but rulers they were.

      "Accomplice" has a certain negative connotation that I think is wholly inappropriate here, unless you were an English imperialist, of course.

      Peers referring to mostly white, mostly land owning, and most certainly males, sure.

      And it means something else today.

      Every slave owning business that operated was in a sense chartered by the power seekers.

      No. It's not a charter. And you ignore that the slavery laws were at the state level. The US Constitution, even as aggressively interpreted as it is by modern courts, still throws less restrictions on state governments than on the federal government.

      You say that, but then you insist the Constitution written by those Founders must have meant YOUR interpretation on what its purpose was?]

      Who has a better interpretation than I? There are several characteristics of a correct interpretation. First, it is consistent as it can be given US law. There are peculiar constraints forced on us by the US Constitution. For example, I prefer an federal-level asset tax, proportional voting for all states, and a privatized post office. But all of these things are precluded by the US Constitution.

      Second, any such interpretation holds the US Constitution as the highest law of the lands of the US. If a law, treaty, or action runs counter to the US Constitution, then they are illegal and should be blocked or prevented. There should be no case of declaring something to be legal only because it'd be rather inconvenient to reverse it. A recent example of this was the Obamacare law. When the Supreme Court overturned part the law, they decided to enforce what was left (this is called "severability"). The legislature did not put instructions in for how to partition the law should parts of it be overturned. It's not the Supreme Court's place to decide what parts of a law to keep and to throw away. If the legislative branch doesn't provide otherwise, they should only wholly keep or reject.

      Third, policy should not set by interpretation of the US Constitution. A classic example of abuse are some of the interpretations of the Second Amendment,

      "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

      Somehow, because there is a preamble that justifies the second, active part of the amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms can readily and trivially be infringed upon. For example, arguing that you're not a member of a "well regulated Militia" and hence, should not be able to have firearms. Or the classic, you can have a black powder musket, but nothing more dangerous. Or forcing people to store their firearms at a tightly controlled firing range. Or forcing people to have firearms with constraints like reduced capacity magazines or gun locks. The games go on and the interpretations mean whatever the would-be law maker wants them to mean.

    12. Re:bill of rights restricts GOVERNMENT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Accomplice" has a certain negative connotation that I think is wholly inappropriate here, unless you were an English imperialist, of course.

      Oh, I think "accomplice" is most appropriate. You could be an accomplice to the colonists OR the imperialists (or loyalists). Whether there's negative connotations in being an accomplice depends on which side the speaker is on, and "accomplice" in question.

      That you think there are negative connotations is more a reflection of your values as opposed to mine.

      Peers referring to mostly white, mostly land owning, and most certainly males, sure.

      And it means something else today.

      Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that the Founders belonged to the political ruling class of their time.

      Every slave owning business that operated was in a sense chartered by the power seekers.

      No. It's not a charter.

      That's why I said "in a sense".

      And you ignore that the slavery laws were at the state level.

      Rightfully so, since the question I was addressing was where power seekers benefited via creation of chartered corporations. There was no restriction that it had to be done at the federal level, or that it be done via the presence of a federal law.

      Who has a better interpretation than I?

      Well, I would say anybody who gets better results using their interpretation, which there are a lot. Now, I'm sure you're not doing bad living your life according to how you interpret the Constitution (you're affluent enough to have Internet, and time to post on slashdot). I wouldn't be surprised if you do better than me. But who am I? I'm just an AC. I'm not the one you have to beat. It's the people in power you have to beat (Obama, for example, since you mentioned Obamacare). They play fast and loose with the interpretations, and they're getting away with it.

      Don't just tell me that your interpretation is better and Obama's suck. Go beat Obama with those principles of yours. If you are correct, it'll be good for both/all of us.

    13. Re:bill of rights restricts GOVERNMENT by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The American war for 'independence' was a proxy war instigated by the French. The US was created by the 'mujahideen' of North America, with similar religious ambitions

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  15. Re:"If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

    How do you function from day to day with reasoning like this?

    Bombs by design are indiscriminately destructive, demolishing everything in every direction. The intent is to destroy. Guns are very focused and have very particular intent. This makes them excellent for self defense, like I want to stop this person from robbing me so I aim and shoot.

    --
    Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
  16. Well it's quite simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no 3D printer that can "print" guns. There are only devices that can make shapes that need finishing with good old Luddite tools and still need good old Luddite parts to actually make a gun, by which time anyone who wants a cheap gun can just make a Sten from Home Depot parts for 10$.

    1. Re:Well it's quite simple by meerling · · Score: 1

      There are several guns that have been made using 3D printers, except for the firing pin. Sure they were parts that had to be assembled, but they were still guns printed by a 3D printer non the less. Now if you want the entire gun printed in one shot fully assembled, that is currently beyond the capabilities of the designs and technology for a few reason, but it's a temporary situation that people are trying to rectify for many reasons that have nothing to do with guns.
      Of course, yes, the current crop of printed guns are total crap and it's cheaper, better, and faster to make a saturday night special with the tools you probably have in your garage.

    2. Re:Well it's quite simple by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I really don't understand the hype that goes along with 3D printed guns. You can get safer (for the operator), longer lasting, more accurate guns with less expertise by making guns the old fashioned way. A gun is a good way to show off that a 3D printer can print some interesting things, but a 3D printer is probably the last piece of machinery you'd need if you wanted to create a good gun.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  17. Reason for the season by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice article. Doctorow did however miss the opportunity to expound upon the greater, more general topic of "crafting laws, period, bound to hurt us in the long, and short run." Advanced topic, though, of course, like natural law applied to a Singular IoT. Cybernetic Darwinism. Legislatures considered as dysfunctional AI's. Whatever.

    It's the spirit of the law that counts, baby, the spirit. Peace, love, out. Merry Christmas.

    1. Re:Reason for the season by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      expounding..."crafting laws", ie., the make it so (for a campaign contribution or favor returned, of course) mentality is heavily biased towards Procrustean beds, thinly veiled servitiude, and covert transfers of sovereignty. Not to mention entropy amongst all the inexhaustible layers of band-aids piled on band-aids.

      I want a government shutdown for Christmas :-)

  18. Racket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's right.

    If we don't control the software, then at some point, we won't control parts of our homes and our selves.

    "Dear Customer:

    We are now charging a small monthly fee for the use of your Home Software. It will be due in 30 days otherwise your heat and hot water will be turned to default levels and your air conditioning will no longer function.

    Thank you.

    Sincerely,

    Your Home Automation company."

    And you can bet your ass that they'll have lobbied Congress to make that completely legal.

    1. Re:Racket by plopez · · Score: 1

      How does this differ from:
      "Dear Customer:

      We are now charging a small monthly fee for the use of your utilities. It will be due in 30 days otherwise your heat and hot water will be turned off and your air conditioning will no longer function.

      Thank you.

      Sincerely,

      Your utility company."

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:Racket by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Make that legal? As far as I can tell such shit is already legal. What would keep them from doing it? You bought their crap, it sure says something like that they can fuck with you any way they like in the fine print, so what's not legal about it?

      Consumer protection whatnow?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Racket by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It differs in such a way that I pay my utilities for their use. I use water, I pay for it. I use power, I pay for it. It's not like I have to pay extra again to use power I already bought.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Re:what is this nonsense about 3D printers and gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LUDDITE!!!! BAN HIM!!!

    3D printing is not just "a" game changer, it's "the" game changer. When your grandchildren are mining asteroids and vacationing on Titan, they'll fondly recall the historic early 21st century 3D printing revolution.

    The game, it has changed!

  20. What else is new? by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

    Because we're on an irreversible trajectory toward integrating technology with our cars and houses, bodies and brains. If we don't control the software, then at some point, we won't control parts of our homes and our selves.

    Last time I checked, humans today can't easily tinker with their own bodies and brains, they have plenty of known bugs and vulnerabilities, and many methods of altering their function are heavily regulated if not illegal.

    While I support the author's idealism, what do you think will happen in this cyborg future when software can be physically addictive or kill you or change your personality? People have always been willing to give up a certain amount of freedom for a certain amount of security, and they will continue to do so.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:What else is new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try saying that when a few billion people can say with some authority, "L'etat, c'est moi."

    2. Re:What else is new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, Nazis, Maoists, etc. are idealists. So are a lot of other people I'm guessing you probably wouldn't support. God save us from idealists, in fact.

      On what or who's authority do you sanction the regulation or proscription, a priori, of humans minding their own business? You sound like an actuary or something. No offense.

  21. Cory Doctorow by oldmac31310 · · Score: 2

    He's the sort of mega-evolved Bennett Haselton. Or Bennet on steroids if you prefer. A lot of obvious waffle and no real clue about anything.

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  22. Re:"If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    I could adapt a bomb for self-defense. The bomb is wired to a heartbeat sensor. With a big warning label across your chest and back, it might make people think twice about shooting you.

  23. Re:"If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns by Lobo42 · · Score: 1

    Sure, there are absolutely differences between regulating bombs and regulating guns. That was my point - the virtue of legislating technology is highly dependent upon the specific technology being legislated. The article and OP are arguing, as far as I understand, that all attempts to legislate technology should be assumed to be harmful.

  24. Re:what is this nonsense about 3D printers and gun by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    No bad guy in the US would. It's easy enough to get one legally there in most states, and the black market is full of stolen guns. It's a lot harder in most of Europe - if I wanted a gun I couldn't get one legally, and I couldn't just ask Dodgy Dave down the pub to pick one up - access to illegal weapons requires a certain level of criminal connections beyond those available to the typical street thug or youth gang. That's why our youth gangs use knives to do most of their murdering.

  25. Re:what is this nonsense about 3D printers and gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > No "bad guy" is going to waste time and money printing an expensive but soft dangerous gun that can fracture.

    Someone always trots out this line of reasoning and it is always short-sighted. Regardless of your political beliefs about guns, it is not hard to see that the way things are today is unlikely to be the way things are in the future. Remember when that guy from IBM said the worldwide market for computers was about 6? It made sense at the time because computers were made of vacuum tubes and where the size of a building. Same thing with all those people who thought the horseless carriage was a fad for the rich because it was noisy, slow and required a dedicated mechanic.

    So yeah, what you say is absolutely true today. But 10, 20 years down the line there is a really good chance that the situation will be substantially different.

  26. Re:"If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't help against snipers, unless they care about collateral damage.

  27. Irreversable? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    "Because we're on an irreversible trajectory toward integrating technology with our cars and houses, bodies and brains"

    Cars and houses sure, but bodies and brains? Speak for yourself there pal, I'm not having anything electronic inside me unless its absolutely necessary such as a pacemaker. There's no way I'd have the kind of trivial consumer tech implants so beloved of sci fi writers. It might be some peoples fantasy to be a cyborg but its not mine.

    1. Re:Irreversable? by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      There's already lethal exploits for implanted insulin pumps that can be delivered wirelessly. How much do you want to bet that there's similar for pacemakers that I haven't yet read about?

      Medical device scarcity is terrifyingly bad right now.

  28. Who controls the software? by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Thats the start of the problem. People control the software. Like with guns, is people that is the one that kills, abuse, take advantage or use it for their own ends, giving them more tools to control our life is letting not only the saint, pure and morally perfect and responsible ones to do so, but all of them, at all levels. People is not perfect, either the one that decides what the software should do, the ones that actually does that, or the ones that in the end have the capabilities to control them, and in that way, you. You know how police can behave already, give them and people in higher more control, and that won't stop them to misbehave, just give them new ways to do it, with more broad impact and the possibility of doing it without consequences nor leaving a trace.

    And if not bad enough the people with their own interests, biases and corruption in the "right" side of the controlling that software, it is not perfect, and you have vulnerabilities, design faults, leaks and plain idiocy at the hour of deciding who can control that software that could let not authorized people to do that control too. And they can do pretty bad misuses too.

    And you are in the center of it, not knowing, not having a warning, not having any possibility of control, In some moment shit will happen because of this and you will be dead, without savings or property, working as a slave or maybe worse consequences. And maybe, not even realizing that all of that already happened.

  29. Why we must Question Network Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is why we really ought to consider the danger of network neutrality... The Government defining how things must be often has much more negative consequences than advantages.

  30. Re:"If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never heard of a shaped charge, eh?

  31. Not all consumers... by jythie · · Score: 1

    Ah, another piece written by a person unable to look past their own subculture. Devices and software are built and marketed around the priorities of the mass consumer, NOT the technical elite.

    1. Re:Not all consumers... by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      I'm going to go on record that the real zombie apocalypse will probably happen when someone's prank accidentally infects everyone with a consumer-grade neural interface implant, and only the technical elite will be running NoScript on their hindbrains when it goes down.

      :P

  32. There ain't nothing inevitable but death. by westlake · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Cory Doctorow has an article in Wired explaining why crafting laws to restrict software is going to hurt us in the long run. The reason?
    Because we're on an irreversible trajectory toward integrating technology with our cars and houses, bodies and brains. If we don't control the software, then at some point, we won't control parts of our homes and our selves.

    The technocrat in every generation sees himself as the undisputed, never-to-be-questioned, master of an irresistible force of nature. It stings when law and society intrudes to set some boundaries of their own.

  33. Re:"If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns by Lobo42 · · Score: 1

    "Even if a law is passed that makes it illegal to 3D print guns, there should not be a law that forces 3D Printer manufacturers to produce 3D printers that refuse to print components that might be used for a gun."

    Perhaps so! I wasn't arguing about the virtue of this specific theoretical legislation, I was taking on the broader argument made by the OP:

    "If your computer has deliberately been designed with a blind spot, the bad guys will use it to evade detection by you and your antivirus software. That's why a 3-D printer with anti-gun-printing code isn't a 3-D printer that won't print guns—the bad guys will quickly find a way around that. It's a 3-D printer that is vulnerable to hacking by malware creeps."

    I don't believe this is necessarily true. Will someone find a way around the gun restriction? Sure, some number of users will always want to hack restrictions away from their devices. But will having the gun restriction in place make the 3D printer more vulnerable, from a technical standpoint, to being hacked? I don't see how. Slashdot filters out various HTML tags from my replies - I don't think this filtering mechanism makes Slashdot more or less likely to be hacked. Doctorow is making a jump from "bad guys will find a way around that" (probably true) to "makes your unit more vulnerable to hacking." To me, this seems like a leap.

    But perhaps there is some technical aspect to gun-design-filtering that I am unaware of?

  34. Flaws... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good guys can find them, too, and natural law trumps all others.

    Let them who have ears, hear.

  35. Re:what is this nonsense about 3D printers and gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone always trots out this line of reasoning...

    The output of a computer is information. Information requires almost no energy to represent and thus ultimately, very little matter. Our entire progress in computers was about being able to make small enough switches.

    This doesn't apply to something in the material world. End of story, full stop.

    Cars from 20 years ago look and act pretty much the same, right? There was no great revolution in pricing, or materials, right?

  36. Better Devils by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    The little guys that hack and crack are a bit of an issue. But if we get aggressive and keep those who make small efforts from bad acts it will be a much more desireable place for big money to start committing computer crimes. Imagine a drug cartel that can spend a few hundred million dollars getting dedicated to draining bank accounts or running up false charge card bills. Think of it like smuggling heroin. Organized crime can smuggle heroin but individuals have very little chance of surviiving such an effort. I have know to couple who went to Columbia to buy cocaine. One saw her husband killed in front of her eyes as the locals stole their money instead of completing the deal. The other couple got robbed and ended up streaking through the counrty side completely nude and lucky to be alive. Yet orgaized crime brings it in by the tons. And just maybe our government is still involved in importing coke.

  37. Re:what is this nonsense about 3D printers and gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There would be less violence if there were more guns. More of the violence would be gun-related, of course, but there would be less of it overall.

    This is because, as any historian and/or military tactician will tell you, the single greatest deterrent to violence is a credible threat of retaliatory violence. It sucks that the world is that way, but we can't change this by pretending the world is not that way.

    So, in sum: Fight crime. Shoot back.

  38. Re:what is this nonsense about 3D printers and gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > This doesn't apply to something in the material world. End of story, full stop.

    How about you trying to full stop being a dumbass? The example has nothing to do with the information produced by computers and everything to do with the material components of computers - hence the point about the size being an entire building. Vacuum tubes versus VLSI. Every year the material of computers gets denser and cheaper to produce. Just like 3D printing tech.

    > Cars from 20 years ago look and act pretty much the same, right? There was no great revolution in pricing, or materials, right?

    Look at fatality rates from 20 years ago and compare them to today. Cars have become enormously safer than they once were. Don't be that idiot who thinks that incremental changes don't add up.

  39. No Smart Tech in My Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disclaimer: I am an IT guy going way back -- early 80s. I've seen it all. I'm familiar with about everything out there either through direct experience or in theory. My wife and I have made the decision to disallow "smart" devices in our homes for several reasons:

    - I know I will not be able to control -- in any meaningful way -- any devices that communicate with the outside world.
    - I don't want my fridge reporting its contents to anyone, especially insurance companies that may charge me more because I like beer or Cheeze Wiz.
    - It's none of anyone's business what shows I watch or if I FF through the commercials. I realize providers can see some of this, but it's still none of their business.
    - I'm against the idea of anyone knowing or seeing anything I do in my private home. The marketing will be ramped up like no one's business.

    No. Just no. Never. I'll be the one buying the $200 No-Name Fridge on the ratty pallet in the back of Lowe's. Yes, I'll be ridiculed, but who cares. A fridge exists to chill and freeze food, not email me when my milk gets low. No thank you. No. Just no. Never.

    1. Re:No Smart Tech in My Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have made the decision to disallow disloyal smart devices. But as for smart devices in general, how did you post that? How can you FF through commericals, without having a recording and a loyal computer, which you do meaningfully control?

      Say what you mean. You don't want crap. But you implied that you actually do use (and enjoy) smart devices.

  40. Re:what is this nonsense about 3D printers and gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " material components of computers -"

    Exactly. We don't build airplanes out of marshmallows either, because what airplanes do takes power. Bits don't. Simple.

    " Cars have become enormously safer than they once were."

    Yes, sometimes I wonder how we survived the raw carnage of the '90s.

    "Don't be that idiot who thinks that incremental changes don't add up."

    Sums can sometimes be negative. We don't even have the Concorde anymore.

  41. Re:"If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bombs by design are indiscriminately destructive, demolishing everything in every direction.

    I think if you were to study the numbers of bombs used by the US Air Force (err.. or whatever they were called back then) from 1942-1945, you would see a strong statistical bias that more of them were used to demolish German and Japanese stuff than American stuff. They were not indiscriminate. Pick any war and look at how "indiscriminate" the bombs were.

    I totally understand, if you don't like bombs (or think they're obsolete tech or simply just not the right amount of bang for your buck) and wouldn't want to use them in your own armed forces, were you the supreme general. But to single them out as some special exception to America's right to bear arms, is kind of absurd. In the normal course of usage, a bomb is as about discriminate as the user wants it to be. Drop it on a Nazi factory, and it's probably going to damage that Nazi factory. Drop it on Pancho Villa's camp, and it might kill Pancho Villa.

    With modern bombs in particular, the government itself is constantly bragging about how precise they are. They can't argue to take them away from America, without the same argument being used to justify taking it away from them.

    [Bombs'] intent is to destroy.

    I think you're right, and that might be a good phrase to use when defining what "arms" are. If something is intended to destroy, then the government is prohibited from infringing peoples' right to use that thing.

  42. Re:"If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns by Chrontius · · Score: 1

    A key component you're missing - we aren't the owners or operators of /.

    A better analogy would be if /. could prevent us from typing those HTML tags into our browser anywhere once we've visited the page once.

    Imagine the kind of software necessary to enforce such a measure upon end users' computers against their will, and you're a lot closer to understanding Doctorow's point.

  43. On that note... by Chrontius · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure that's the business model embraced by Lowe's store-brand home automation gear.

  44. Re:"If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns by HiThere · · Score: 1

    What's a bomb? Seriously. An explosive device remotely explodable can be used in mining, or as a weapon. The exact same device.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  45. Re:what is this nonsense about 3D printers and gun by HiThere · · Score: 1

    I'm sure that you think you have a point, but I haven't a clue as to what it is. Even as a troll this is sub-par. If you're trying to be serious you really need to think more about how to present your argument.

    You are, I think, responding to the claim that you aren't noticing that many small changes can yield an important difference. What you intend your response to mean I find opaque.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  46. Re:what is this nonsense about 3D printers and gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Score:0)? I thought the grammar alone was worth a +1 Funny, but that's just me...

  47. RMS got it right yet again by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

    It must be rough for those that rejected Stallman as "too extreme", catching up to where he was in the 80s.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
  48. Re:what is this nonsense about 3D printers and gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know how to make it clearer. Information and matter are two separate things. Implying that because computers got incrementally better, that everything will get better is false.

    That's all there is to it. The kinds of economies you can make in building a computer don't apply to things in the physical world. How much does "4" weigh? According to Shannon's Information theory, not a lot. Therefore we can make computers almost arbitrarily small and low-power.

    You can't make an airplane arbitrarily small. You will always need a minimum amount of matter and energy to get the job done.

    Same with machining. CNC machines are available in all kinds of sizes and price ranges and I don't recall a big rush to get on in every home in the '90s.

    Also, there just isn't this crushing massive consumer need for plastic pieces and trinkets.

    Like I and others have noticed, 3D printing appeals mostly to nerds that spend more time repairing and upgrading the printer instead of making things.

  49. Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is news?

    Gee, I thought everyone had this figured out by now.

    I guess if they haven't, it explains why everyone seems so unconcerned about owning smartphones controlled by unaccountable third parties, or entrusting data about every minor detail of their life to a marketing business disguised as a communications tool.

  50. Best argument... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I have heard in a long time.

  51. Re:what is this nonsense about 3D printers and gun by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Yes/No. When you can build stronger materials under computer control, then computers allow you to build smaller/lighter airplanes.

    OTOH, it isn't the computer itself that facilitates the improvement, its the computer as a part of an improved process, that couldn't be improved (that way) without the computer.

    So. Currently 3D printers are toys. Did you ever even see the Sinclair computer? (I forget its model.) It was a toy. But that didn't make it totally useless, and other computers were not only much more useful, they became both more useful and smaller and cheaper over time.

    P.S.: There *do* exist 3D printers that aren't toys. They also aren't cheap, and the ones I've information on aren't small. But different models can print in Titanium, Aluminium, Concrete, etc. I don't know whether they all require hand finishing, I expect so. OTOH, this is early days yet.

    Do you know how long the laser was called "The development looking for a use?" It was over a decade. Of course, the original lasers were big, expensive, and difficult to use. They required specially polished rubies, cryonic conditions, and they only worked on microwaves. They were also called masers, but that word has dropped out of existence, so now we have uv lasers, ir lasers, green lasers, and for all I know X-ray lasers.

    I doubt that CNC machines will ever drop out of use. I expect that they'll continue to become easier to use. But they won't be used for small runs for much longer. Already Car companies use expensive 3D printers to print their design prototypes, and I'm sure there are many uses I haven't heard of.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  52. Re:what is this nonsense about 3D printers and gun by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    nonsense, a crook can just steal a legal gun in Europe. Been done many many times

  53. Re:what is this nonsense about 3D printers and gun by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    I would expect in 20 years we'll have much deadlier weapons than the explosive powered projectile ones we've been using for 600 years

  54. Re:what is this nonsense about 3D printers and gun by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    Sure, progress can change the game in a decades, but in the here and now it is ridiculous to speak of the tools of these hobbyists making yoda heads as possessing the means to increase firearm crime.

    Word "maser" hasn't dropped out of existence, they are still around in precision time keeping applications and in medicine.