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

241–250 of 861 posts

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

#241

Post by slg »

Tostino wrote: post #219
slg wrote: post #212

I think it's interesting to note that not only is there precedent for this type of "blocking technology that prevents the printing of certain things"[1], but it's also inconsequential and uncontroversial enough that most of the people here obviously have never even heard of it. We lost the ability to print $50 bills with our HPs[2] and it had no noticeable negative impact on society. I'm not sure why losing the abili…

Uh, I'd say that something has in fact been lost in that every single printer sold watermarks every document printed regardless of if you are attempting to print a $50 bill or not. There are plenty of people who change their behavior because that tracking is in place, regardless of if what they are doing (or would be doing) is in any way illegal. Terrible example IMO.

>regardless of if you are attempting to print a $50 bill or not.

Maybe the way this applies to everything should be an indication that it's unrelated to the point I made about blocking the printing of certain things.

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

#242

Post by digiown »

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".

As far as I know, the tracking dots aren't even a legal requirement. Nothing stops you from making a printer without it, unlike is the case here.

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

#243

Post by foobarchu »

GenerWork wrote: post #201
BobaFloutist wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and remind me what happened to the liberal American that armed himself in Minnesota?

[flagged]

There is video evidence and many eyewitnesses that he did no such thing. If you need to lie to justify fascism, maybe you shouldn't be supporting fascism.

He possessed a weapon on his person in a state where that in completely legal, in a country whose constitution explicitly says he's allowed to own that weapon. There was not a single reason for him to be executed by federal agents.

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

#244

Post by arealaccount »

EarlKing wrote: post #208

They can require whatever the want. Good luck stopping people from just building their own printers without such "blocking technology".

0. We will have to enforce blocking technology against printing printer components to bypass blocking technology

Goto 0

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

#245

Post by debatem1 »

hactually wrote: post #214
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…

Just imagine what happens when lawmakers discover the possibilities of every one with access to a lathe or CNC machine. Absolutely ridiculous.

Every time I see one of these stories I wonder how many tools I would have to remove from my garage to make it impossible to build a primitive gun in there. With enough ingenuity I'm really not sure there would be anything left.

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

#248

Post by kart23 »

hazmazlaz wrote: post #168

The most insane thing about this is that it is not illegal to manufacture firearms in the United States. Providing that you do not sell or distribute the firearm, it is entirely legal to manufacture a firearm in the USA for personal use only. Laws vary state by state, of course, and it may be different in the state of New York, but assuming that this federal law has not been overridden by some state law in New York,…

it’s illegal to make a gun for personal use without a serial number in ny and ca.

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/consu...

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

#249

Post by groundzeros2015 »

kart23 wrote: post #248
hazmazlaz wrote: post #168

The most insane thing about this is that it is not illegal to manufacture firearms in the United States. Providing that you do not sell or distribute the firearm, it is entirely legal to manufacture a firearm in the USA for personal use only. Laws vary state by state, of course, and it may be different in the state of New York, but assuming that this federal law has not been overridden by some state law in New York,…

it’s illegal to make a gun for personal use without a serial number in ny and ca. https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/consu...

NY and CA have the most strict gun regulations

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

#250

Post by SR2Z »

hyperbovine wrote: post #192
pjbk wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People print guns and gun parts. More than you think. Now even more since metal printing is starting to become affordable. I print grip and grip attachments for my 9mms and my AR15, trigger guards, barrel clamps, etc. I also find it stupid since, as the article suggests, what kind of algorithm can you implement to do smart detection of something that could be potentially dangerous? Will it also detect negative space?…

> Sadly, instead of having better laws we get fallacy rhetoric by people who probably have never touched, much less fired a gun in their lives. Why is this the litmus test for being qualified to write gun legislation? Do we also expect our lawmakers to have tried heroin or downloaded child porn so that they can regulate those activities?

This is a bad example. I've been notionally pro-ownership but also pro-regulation my whole life, and one of the major problems with gun legislation in the US is that it's incredibly poorly written and does not reflect the technical reality of guns.

The government allows private ownership of automatic weapons, but hasn't issued any new tax stamps for 50 years. You can convert any semiauto gun into a full-auto gun for a few cents of 3D printed parts (or a rubber band). The hysteria over "assault weapons" basically outlawed guns that _looked_ scary, while not meaningfully making anyone safer.

I think yes, it is reasonable for Congresspeople to fire a gun before they legislate on it, because otherwise they are incapable of writing good laws.

Good gun regulation in the US would probably look like car insurance, where gun owners need to register and insure their weapons against the possibility of crimes being committed with them. There are so many guns compared to the amount of gun crime that it would probably not end up terribly expensive, especially if you own a gun safe.

Post reply on HN