Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on from the at-least-from-people-who-obey-the-law dept.

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."

18 of 423 comments (clear)

  1. Because...it's the LAW! by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Because...it's the LAW! by kheldan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    2. Re:Because...it's the LAW! by Orange+Crush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More importantly, they think it' s"their" government and they forget who it is they're supposed to be working for.

    3. Re: Because...it's the LAW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    4. Re:Because...it's the LAW! by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or in America. In rather liberal states like Vermont we can get guns at the local Walmart.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  2. It stopped piracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:It stopped piracy by bobbied · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  3. Of course it will by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Do you have ESP?
  4. F14 is largely declassified by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  5. Re:compensating? by JonWan · · Score: 4, Informative

    This has nothing to do with guns or dicks. It's about control, the control of information that everyone already has. It's useless regulation that will end up costing billions of dollars.

  6. Pointless, since we already have a work-around by Totenglocke · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Pointless, since we already have a work-around by knightghost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Voters are the ones that don't learn - they keep putting these idiot politicians into office.

  7. Foreign interests? by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 than what this guy is making.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  8. Re:I sincerely hope the 1st Amendment is bulletpro by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good luck, Judges hate it when you try to be "clever" with tricks like that, and rarely rule in your favor. Also don't forget that the diagram is already technically broken into parts (individual bits) by virtue of being digitized and sent through the Internet anyway, so that particular attempt to circumvent a ban is unlikely to work with any law as effectively written.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  9. Re:Crappy precedent... by delt0r · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is not the first time they did this. In fact it has quite an interesting history in cryptography that was classified as a munition for just this reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  10. Re:Crappy precedent... by wvmarle · · Score: 4, Informative

    You must be new here.

    Ever heard of PGP? The versions that used the large encryption keys (>1024 bits at the time, iirc, or maybe even smaller keys), used to be banned for export under certain US military laws. The rest of the world had to do with a weaker version of PGP. Not that the full version wasn't available to us anyway...

  11. Because it worked so well for PGP... by GoddersUK · · Score: 4, Insightful

    PGP: Source Code and Internals - Phil Zimmerman - 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?

  12. Presumably you've never been shot at by zerofoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anti-gunners seem to boil down defensive gun uses to winning and losing.

    An armed population is a deterrence. There is a reason why many mass shootings happen at schools. They are completely disarmed soft targets. Shooters know there won't be anyone to shoot back at them.

    I guarantee a mass shooter will move much more slowly and carefully if even ONE person shoots back. It's human nature. Slowing a mass shooter is one way to save lives - you don't need to hit the guy between the eyes for there to be a benefit.