Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We can still stop California's 3D printer surveillance scheme

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 208 posts

Re: We can still stop California's 3D printer surveillance scheme

#51

Post by sfRattan »

dmfdmf wrote: post #18

I am old enough to remember when the fax machine first became ubiquitous in the 80's and read about how the Soviets were threatened by it. Unauthorized use was a crime and they stationed guards at fax machines to prevent mis-use. Perhaps I naively fell for CIA propaganda at the time but if true we can hope/estimate that California Commies will fall in less than 10 years since things are moving much faster in today's…

It wasn't just fax machines. Throughout the Eastern bloc, typewriters were strictly controlled and registered. There's a great scene in The Lives of Others [1], a German movie about a Stasi agent and a dissident writer, in which the Stasi (East German secret police) have recovered a typed manuscript that was smuggled to the West, and are interviewing a forensic expert to determine the make/model of typewriter used, in an attempt to cross reference against anyone who owns that typewriter.

We still do similar things now, though for ostensibly different reasons. Inkjet and laser printers have long had various signatures they add to every printed page, barely noticeable to the naked eye, that can lead back to the specific printer used. The stated motivation is to prevent counterfeitting. Similarly, there is a pattern of "O" symbols called the EURion constellation that, if present in an image file, most commercial image editing software will refuse to print [2].

It's not surprising that politicians are trying these sorts of strategies with 3D printing, because they've already tried and used them often in the past.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation#Counterfe...

Re: We can still stop California's 3D printer surveillance scheme

#53

Post by b112 »

jacobolus wrote: post #44
jatora wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Each congressperson's staff gathers all of the comments they get, counts them up, and reports back to the congressperson, passing along anything they think would be useful information; if you write a clear and careful letter about an obscure topic there's a decent chance the congressperson themself will see it. Congresspeople typically have local ties in their area and caring what their constituents think is their jo…

Not an American, but I've wondered about increasing numbers myself. Certainly, giving each representative fewer citizens to represent could help.

I worry about the size of the bodies, however. Too big, and they become less wieldy. Maybe I'm wrong, but I wonder about other solutions. I was thinking of, for example, 10x the number, but each grouping of 10 has a representative, and they each give proxies on votes. Maybe best though of as, junior representatives. It'd allow more direct interaction, and in a sense you'd be electing regional representative staff for each congressperson.

I guess there are a lot of ways to handle this, but regardless I overall 100% agree.

Re: We can still stop California's 3D printer surveillance scheme

#54

Post by wat10000 »

userbinator wrote: post #45
deet wrote: post #10

Imagine if you couldn't buy a lathe unless it refused to make a baseball bat (which could be used for hitting people). Or if you couldn't buy scissors (because they could cut brake lines). Or if you couldn't buy a car (because it could be used to run someone over). And if all of those checked with the government before functioning. It's almost like maybe instead you should just ban the undesirable end action, enforce…

enforce that law Califoria would not be a sanctuary state if they actually cared about enforcing laws.

Why would a state enforce federal law?

Re: We can still stop California's 3D printer surveillance scheme

#55

Post by ctdinjeu4 »

asveikau wrote: post #26

California voters, write to your state senator. I'm in San Francisco, and I wrote to Scott Wiener, who recently voted to pass this out of committee. Before that when it was still in the assembly, I wrote to Matt Haney, which didn't do much good because he voted for it both in committee and for passage. But, I feel like bay area legislators need to know many of their constituents know this bill is misguided and are pa…

[dead]

Re: We can still stop California's 3D printer surveillance scheme

#56

Post by Mountain_Skies »

__natty__ wrote: post #17
WillPostForFood wrote: post #3

Looks even more draconian than the New York law. For example, it seems to mandate proprietary, locked down slicers from the printer manufacturer. -- For integrated preprint software [slicer] design, guidance for how vendors shall demonstrate that printers will accept print jobs exclusively through authorized and validated software systems and will not accept print jobs from unauthorized software pathways, including a…

Over the last few years, I’ve felt as though I’ve been living in a feverish dream all the time. Laws, regulations and general changes in the world are so detached from reality and so far removed from the reality they are meant to serve. And this is yet another example.

[flagged]

Re: We can still stop California's 3D printer surveillance scheme

#57

Post by WillPostForFood »

wat10000 wrote: post #54
userbinator wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

enforce that law Califoria would not be a sanctuary state if they actually cared about enforcing laws.

Why would a state enforce federal law?

[flagged]

Re: We can still stop California's 3D printer surveillance scheme

#58

Post by WillPostForFood »

azov wrote: post #50
arjie wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California is just a population that tries to solve problems with maximal regulation and selective enforcement. So you get to see the effects. Here are some laws that I think the HN community would be hugely in favour of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48652773 Yeah, I'd prefer to have an offline 3d printer but it seems I've made a mistake with my Bambu P1S.

What was the mistake? Can’t P1S work offline? I thought they can print from SD card, and there’s also LAN mode?..

Offline printing would be illegal in printers sold after the law goes into effect.

*printers will accept print jobs exclusively through authorized and validated software systems and will not accept print jobs from unauthorized software pathways, including attempts by users seeking to evade a detection algorithm.*

Re: We can still stop California's 3D printer surveillance scheme

#59

Post by WalterBright »

jacobolus wrote: post #44
jatora wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Each congressperson's staff gathers all of the comments they get, counts them up, and reports back to the congressperson, passing along anything they think would be useful information; if you write a clear and careful letter about an obscure topic there's a decent chance the congressperson themself will see it. Congresspeople typically have local ties in their area and caring what their constituents think is their jo…

A 10x increase would just be chaos.

Re: We can still stop California's 3D printer surveillance scheme

#60

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

deet wrote: post #10

Imagine if you couldn't buy a lathe unless it refused to make a baseball bat (which could be used for hitting people). Or if you couldn't buy scissors (because they could cut brake lines). Or if you couldn't buy a car (because it could be used to run someone over). And if all of those checked with the government before functioning. It's almost like maybe instead you should just ban the undesirable end action, enforce…

We used to ban the undesirable action! Then DEFCAD got that ban overturned, convincing the federal government that they have a First Amendment right to publish 3D-printable firearm plans. So now our choices are to allow widespread 3D printed firearms (which I and many others won't accept) or restrict the means by which they can be made. I genuinely do wish the DEFCAD folks had made different choices that would not have led us here.
Post reply on HN