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

New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

blog.adafruit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 861 posts

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#101

Post by talkinghead »

pjc50 wrote: post #33

This is insanely stupid stuff. Even the UK with our weird panic over Incredibly Specific Knives hasn't tried to do this kind of technical restriction to prevent people printing guns. Why not? Because nobody is printing guns! It's an infeasible solution to a non-problem! Someone should dig into who this is coming from and why. The answers are usually either (a) they got paid to do it by a company selling the tech, whi…

i personally wouldn't described teenagers killing each other with luminous green hunting knives as a 'weird panic' but perhaps something that needs a lot of attention and a multitude of steps to solve. banning these insane weapons is, would you believe it, one quick step that might help.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#102

Post by bombcar »

crazygringo wrote: post #7

I don't think they know what Ctrl+Alt+Delete means. They want to restart it? They want to go to the screen where you can switch users or sign out? Do they think it's just a fancier way of saying delete?

Hey, it's similar to Weird Al's song:

Play me online? Well, you know that I'll beat you

If I ever meet you I'll control-alt-delete you

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#103

Post by jp191919 »

BanazirGalbasi wrote: post #81
jp191919 wrote: post #3

It's not illegal to make your own firearm, you just can't sell it.

If I recall correctly, this is state-dependent. Some states just say you can't sell it, some require you to serialize anything you make even if you won't sell (the process of serialization isn't specified), and some ban self-made firearms completely. If you cross state lines with something you've made, you need to make sure you're following laws in both states just to be safe.

True, a terrible patchwork of different state laws makes it very easy to unknowingly violate a law.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#104

Post by pjc50 »

bluescrn wrote: post #83
MisterTea wrote: post #2

Why would I bother with an unreliable 3D printed zip gun and 3D printing when I can go and get a real working gun off the street for a few hundred? Edit, reading further it's even more insane: > The New York definitions sweep in not just FDM and resin printers, but also CNC mills and “any machine capable of making three-dimensional modifications to an object from a digital design file using subtractive manufacturing.…

> Why would I bother with an unreliable 3D printed zip gun and 3D printing when I can go and get a real working gun off the street for a few hundred? Even in countries with strict gun control, like the UK, the most serious criminals can get hold of guns. And if lesser criminals 3D printed a gun, they'd struggle to get hold of ammo for it. So they stick to knives.

Reading up on this, the remaining UK incidents seem to involve mostly "converted blank-firing copies", with the NCA describing 3D printed firearms as "low status". And as you say ammo is highly controlled here.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#105

Post by BanazirGalbasi »

dangus wrote: post #46

I really dislike this whole debate because I never wanted to be lumped in with 3D gun printing weirdos. When I first told my very non-technical somewhat new friend about my 3D printer, they looked really concerned and told me they weren’t comfortable with it because of how people make weapons with them. I’ve had to spend a lot of time building trust and showing that I’m not one of those weirdos. Ultimately I don’t th…

This seems like a problem with your friend moreso than with 3D printing in general. Most people I know who hear about 3D printing don't immediately think of making weapons. Toys and weird gadgets tend to come to mind first, or maybe an office accessory like my laptop stands. The fact that your friend immediately jumped to the conclusion that it's for making weapons says a lot about the way they think about the world.

I agree that the law seems to validate the viewpoint, but I disagree that it's a common one, nor that you should have had to spend time building that trust.

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#106

Post by milesvp »

pjc50 wrote: post #33

This is insanely stupid stuff. Even the UK with our weird panic over Incredibly Specific Knives hasn't tried to do this kind of technical restriction to prevent people printing guns. Why not? Because nobody is printing guns! It's an infeasible solution to a non-problem! Someone should dig into who this is coming from and why. The answers are usually either (a) they got paid to do it by a company selling the tech, whi…

Could be the way guns are defined in UK are different. There is a fundamental problem in US law specifically, that you can purchase legally nearly any part of a gun separately, but only need to register the lower receiver. These are parts that take very little stress and can be relatively easily printed and used to hold together all the other parts that actually hold the stress of firing the bullet.

This is at least true for some specific rifles, where there’s a whole industry around selling unfinished receivers that are relatively easy to mill down with common machining tools to be able to assemble unregistered rifles.

My guess, is that these bills are a knee jerk reaction to constituents who’ve seen some tik toks talking about this. Though the conspiracist in me thinks that it’s mostly an excuse for control. This means, this bill is also coming for the UK too…

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#108

Post by kstrauser »

ryandrake wrote: post #94
kstrauser wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t want an antivirus on my (hypothetical because I don’t have one) 3D printer. I want it to dumbly print whatever it is I send to it.

I want all my tools to dumbly operate on whatever I'm working on. Imagine if lathes were required to try to guess whether you're reboring a rifle barrel and stopped themselves from running. Or if a bandsaw had to detect whether what you are cutting was gun shaped. Totally ridiculous. [EDIT: Looks like these examples were already brought up in the article, since they're obvious]

But you’re OK with a screwdriver that could be used to assemble a gun without even checking what it’s torquing? /s

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#109

Post by bluescrn »

talkinghead wrote: post #101
pjc50 wrote: post #33

This is insanely stupid stuff. Even the UK with our weird panic over Incredibly Specific Knives hasn't tried to do this kind of technical restriction to prevent people printing guns. Why not? Because nobody is printing guns! It's an infeasible solution to a non-problem! Someone should dig into who this is coming from and why. The answers are usually either (a) they got paid to do it by a company selling the tech, whi…

i personally wouldn't described teenagers killing each other with luminous green hunting knives as a 'weird panic' but perhaps something that needs a lot of attention and a multitude of steps to solve. banning these insane weapons is, would you believe it, one quick step that might help.

Would they really do less stabbing if they had to use a mundane kitchen knife instead of a 'tacticool' knife or 'ninja sword'?

Re: New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers

#110

Post by ndriscoll »

Retric wrote: post #55
AustinDev wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could attempt it, but the Second Amendment is quite clear that a constitutional amendment would be necessary to ban firearms and ammunition.

Forearms yes, percussion caps no. A large fraction of the harm from firearms comes from their ability to fire rapidly which didn’t exist when the constitution was written. As such it was making a very different balance of risk between the general public and individuals.

The Girardoni repeating air rifle predates the ratification of the constitution by ~11 years and was taken on the Lewis and Clark expedition ~13 years later. Really the whole discussion around 2A is usually nonsense because it ignores the context that the entire Bill of Rights had a completely different meaning prior to the 14th amendment leading to incorporation over the last century (and other expansions of federal power via commerce clause); that is, the Bill of Rights originally did not apply to the states.

Very obviously individuals were expected to be part of the militia, which was the military at the time (c.f. the Militia Acts 2 years after ratification requiring individual gun ownership and very clearly laying out that all able-bodied white male citizens aged 18-45 were part of the militia), but also states could regulate weapons if they wanted.

Post reply on HN