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

141–150 of 861 posts

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

#141

Post by dangus »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #123
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…

A normal country? Like Iran that just slaughters or imprisons anybody that speaks or acts against the government. 2A is to stop that situation from ever happening. Is the government starts shooting we will shoot back. Before then we would prefer to resolve our grievances peacefully in court.

Most countries aren’t Iran. Are the French unable to protest without the 2nd amendment?

Did the 2nd amendment save Mark Pretti from that exact situation happening to him?

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

#142

Post by ndriscoll »

Retric wrote: post #140
ndriscoll wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but compressed air guns are deadly (you can find videos of people using them on deer on youtube, or if you want something less graphic, you can find ballistic gel test videos), and a repeating rifle did exist at the time and was used a couple years later by an official American expedition commissioned by Jefferson. So fast-firing weapons were not some alien technology. The wider context also makes it clear that…

> So fast-firing weapons were not some alien technology. Thrown stones are a fast firing deadly weapon. They, compressed air guns, and ball musket etc aren’t used by modern military forces in combat because they are less dangerous. A rule that allows compressed air weapons yet bans percussion caps is quite reasonable and could pass constitutional scrutiny.

It might be quite reasonable, but it would also quite clearly require an amendment to do in the US, which is what you originally replied to.

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

#143

Post by pragma_x »

I wrote as good an opposition as I could. Basically, I opposed it on multiple principles.

From the top, I absolutely detest this kind of censorship. But the bill states that the implementation will be defined (or rendered infeasible - yeah right) AFTER the bill passes. Said decision will be punted to a "working group" of industry folks. That alone stinks, since it places a lot of abuse potential outside of duly elected representation.

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

#144

Post by kps »

harrisi wrote: post #116

Should flour, yeast, water, and ovens be banned, and only commercial bakeries be allowed to make bread? I know guns are different. There are also an enormous amount of ways to cause harm. I personally think that, ideally, nobody should have guns. That's not the world we live in, though. A political government body should not infringe on privacy of individuals because some small percentage may cause harm. I can make a…

You can buy a thing for your fingernails, a thing for your hair, and a thing for your drains, and put them together to hurt a lot of people (though likely and ideally only yourself), but those things are not banned.

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

#145

Post by Retric »

ndriscoll wrote: post #142
Retric wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So fast-firing weapons were not some alien technology. Thrown stones are a fast firing deadly weapon. They, compressed air guns, and ball musket etc aren’t used by modern military forces in combat because they are less dangerous. A rule that allows compressed air weapons yet bans percussion caps is quite reasonable and could pass constitutional scrutiny.

It might be quite reasonable, but it would also quite clearly require an amendment to do in the US, which is what you originally replied to.

Grenades a clear requirement for a modern infantry are also banned, thus eliminating any argument that a modern standards of military efficiency apply.

Banding heavy machine guns yet another invention after the constitution was written didn’t, so there’s clear present this wouldn’t either.

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

#146

Post by OutOfHere »

Just reject printing everything or nearly everything :)

Inform users where this censorship filter is implemented, so users can go change the source file value from 1 to 0 :)

Malicious compliance is highly appropriate for a malicious law.

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

#147

Post by kube-system »

Retric wrote: post #136
kube-system wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The second amendment wasn't written because the authors thought guns were inert. It was written precisely because they could impart deadly force. 2. As someone else pointed out, early repeating rifles did exist then. 3. If the meaning of the constitution is only to be evaluated against the technology available at the time -- what does that say about the validity of the 1st or 4th amendments with modern technology?

Air guns existed sure. There’s a reason those aren’t used by the military today, they just aren’t that dangerous.

They're deadly and rapid fire.

But again, in historical context, the point of the 2A was to permit people to own the most deadly weapons of war that existed at that time.

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

#148

Post by cucumber3732842 »

talkinghead wrote: post #93

perhaps people printing their own guns at home is actually quite bad and in fact should be controlled in some way without it being seen as a fundamental incursion on your rights. just a thought from across the pond.

The idea that we should let government software run on our printers to prevent the rate case where someone both wants to print a gun and do some crime with it is absurd. There are more important 1st and 4th amendment considerations here

NYC doesn't have a gun problem. They regulate the shit out of guns to no effect. They should regress closer to the national mean and spend the resources on stuff that matters more. And even if they do want to regulate it, micromanaging everyone's 3d printers is not the way to do it both because of bad efficacy and bad precedent.

I'm glad there's an ocean between us.

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

#149

Post by slowmovintarget »

dylan604 wrote: post #30
AnotherGoodName wrote: post #21

This will cause 3D printer usability to go down massively. A bit like the multicolored tracking dots - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_tracking_dots that causes the driver to tell you "you can't print black and white as you're out of yellow".

It made me think of the tracking dots as well, but this is more like every time you hit print, it submits a copy of your document to the cloud for approval. With time, they could use AI to silently update the document to alter the offending portions and continue printing. They would then notify the authorities of the breach and decision could be made if further action is necessary

"The government has been notified that you are attempting to 3D print a copyrighted Door Wedge™ without a license. Local law enforcement has been notified, please prepare to be arrested."

or worse...

"You are trying to print a design that is 87% similar to Egg Cup™. Acquire a limited run license for $3000 for ten runs which expires in six months? Y/N"

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

#150

Post by kube-system »

Retric wrote: post #145
ndriscoll wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be quite reasonable, but it would also quite clearly require an amendment to do in the US, which is what you originally replied to.

Grenades a clear requirement for a modern infantry are also banned, thus eliminating any argument that a modern standards of military efficiency apply. Banding heavy machine guns yet another invention after the constitution was written didn’t, so there’s clear present this wouldn’t either.

Except "it was made after the constitution was written" is a standard you've made up -- there is existing case law from SCOTUS that 2A protects guns "in common use"
Post reply on HN