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

171–180 of 208 posts

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

#171

Post by mike_hock »

creato wrote: post #124
gdiamos wrote: post #85

My kindergartner has a 3D printer. I got a call from the school principal. She said “another parent called and said your son 3D printed a gun and brought it to school”. I looked at the print history. It was a tiny toy mandalorian figurine holding a blaster pistol in his hand. I bought my son a bigger 3D printer and told him to stop playing with that boy.

I can see how something like this happens. We're talking about a 5 year old kid seeing something at school, and describing it to their parents. Who knows what the kid said? Then you have situations like the young kid that did bring a gun to school and shoot a teacher, and there were tips not followed up on, and the school getting absolutely dragged through the court of public opinion because of it. So, the adults in…

There's the case of a kid printing a non-functional toy weapon.

And then there's the case of years of consistent violent behavior, and even when the principal was advised on the day of the shooting that the kid was in possession of a firearm, she did nothing.

Hard to tell them apart.

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

#172

Post by wat10000 »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #107
wat10000 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawsuits are part of the law, not thwarting the law. Refusing notifications and holds is inaction, the opposite of “actively.”

pedantic. You can use lawsuits, within the law, to thwart the law. You can do it knowing you will lose, just to cause delays, like Califorinia and the 9th circuit are ACTIVELY doing to slowdown gun control cases from reaching the supreme court where they 100% will be struck down. Refusing notification is an action.

If you see someone speeding and you don’t report it to the police, does that mean you are ACTIVELY thwarting the law?

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

#173

Post by somenameforme »

defrost wrote: post #139
somenameforme wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

School shootings are extremely rare and so I was curious how it could be that large. The nuance is that those pages are not just listing school shootings as commonly understood/feared, but any shooting involving a school in any way. So for instance from the 2010s [1] page you get teacher shooting principle, biology professor (female no less!) shooting other professors, guy killing himself in a university library afte…

to be fair, other countries also have listed as school shootings any event that involved shooting and a school; eg: Australia with a population ~ 15x smaller than the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_Au... has a total of six (6) incidents this century (since 2000) .. somewhat less than a factor of 15 less than the US for that same 26 year period. Note that three of the six incidents of th…

I think the connotation of a school shooting is somebody going to a school and shooting numerous students in a mostly random fashion with the intention of creating terror. That's why guns are so scary in this context - it's trivial to kill a person with a gun, a knife, a car, or a brick, but it's much easier to kill 10 people with a gun than it is with the other instruments - well except perhaps a car.

But when you aren't listing just these sort school shootings, but instead listing any homicide that occurred within the vicinity of a school, why is it reasonable to exclude the various incidents of non-gun homicides at Australian [1][2] (or American for that matter) schools? It just feels like a false narrative. Because what matters if we're just speaking of safety at schools is how often people are killed within the vicinity of schools, though obviously subdata including the share of each weapon in homicides would be useful/informative.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lilie_James

[2] - https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15912963/Father-dies-...

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

#174

Post by iamnothere »

somenameforme wrote: post #136
crtified wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It was a good discussion topic about why adults get so bothered by things that look like guns. I think that's because parent-child is the strongest bond known to humanity, so anything symbolic of (or against) child safety evokes the strongest emotional responses we can ever have. Guns, when loaded, are one of the extremely few consumer objects capable of being held in a child's hand and, with a physical ease similar…

School shootings are extremely rare and so I was curious how it could be that large. The nuance is that those pages are not just listing school shootings as commonly understood/feared, but any shooting involving a school in any way. So for instance from the 2010s [1] page you get teacher shooting principle, biology professor (female no less!) shooting other professors, guy killing himself in a university library afte…

Many school shootings would also be better classified as “shootings at a school”, such as targeted gang violence or arguments between individuals. This doesn’t excuse these events (kids should be safe at school) but most are not the sort of Columbine-style events evoked by the phrase. Conflating the two likely makes it harder to find a solution, as “ban guns” isn’t on the table without an amendment.

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

#175

Post by thunderfork »

logicchains wrote: post #144
__natty__ wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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. Yet I bet you kept voting for the same parties that keep passing such laws.

It's almost like American democracy has been dysfunctional and degrading further for more than half a century

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

#176

Post by rationalist »

peddling-brink wrote: post #166
rdtsc wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That boy knows what he is doing. Kids figure this stuff out they are no dummies. You don’t like so and so? Tell teachers they printed a “gun”. Or mentioned “gun” or said a politically incorrect word. It’s a form of bullying using a system’s irrationality against others. Kind of like swatting

Not at 5. 10, maybe. Those are not the thoughts of a 5 year old.

Unless someone taught that concept to the 5 year old.

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

#177

Post by paytonjjones »

peddling-brink wrote: post #166
rdtsc wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That boy knows what he is doing. Kids figure this stuff out they are no dummies. You don’t like so and so? Tell teachers they printed a “gun”. Or mentioned “gun” or said a politically incorrect word. It’s a form of bullying using a system’s irrationality against others. Kind of like swatting

Not at 5. 10, maybe. Those are not the thoughts of a 5 year old.

It's not that they are planning the sequence and understanding all the cogs in the machine. It's that they've seen the same situation play out 10 times already with other kids. All they need to do is copy it exactly.

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

#178

Post by Ccecil »

I am curious which 3d printer manufacturers/developers are poised to take advantage of this.

What machines already have locked down (or partially locked down) slicers and communications to the boards? Have those companies made a statement?

Is there any opensource firmware which can comply?

This is a massive hit on the opensource community. As a vendor/dev of an opensource CNC control board (Smoothieboard) I will be forced to limit sales to any state with these laws (our board can easily be used to bypass these protections).

Having watched over the last 13 years how our boards have led to many other machines and innovations outside of the 3d printing community over the years (OpenPNP, Wazer, Opentrons, etc) I can only see this as stifling to development in every direction.

I wonder how companies like Machmotion and other retrofit CNC controls are viewing this as well. Since this also applies to all CNC.

I don't live in any of the states proposing these types of laws...but when it does come here I doubt it will be stopped. The simple act of making your own machine for art/design will make you a criminal.

"The more rules and regulations...the more thieves and robbers."

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

#179

Post by oceanplexian »

It's fascinating because there are 3+ Constitutional Rights being stepped on which makes this much more nefarious than impacting some 3D printer hobbyists. If they can get their foot in the door on this issue you can kiss all of your civil liberties goodbye.

1) The right to bear arms absolutely gives you the right to make your own gun. It would be like saying the right to vote doesn't give you the right to use a pen or enter a polling place.

2) For the politicians that lack an imagination, print out the GCODE file and put it in a paperback book. Now is the government going to claim it's illegal to disseminate a book?

3) Neither does the government have a right to "search" a 3D printer without probable cause. That's a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

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

#180

Post by asveikau »

chroma wrote: post #135
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…

When Wiener ignores these messages, will you vote against him in the next election, even if that means voting republican? Because if not, you can expect more laws like this one. If you want different laws, you need to elect different politicians.

He is currently in a congressional race. 1 month ago I voted against him, for Saikat Chakrabarti. In November he will face Connie Chan.

It's possible that Chan would also support this. She is not in a position to do so now, because she is not voting on state law.

Post reply on HN