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

391–400 of 861 posts

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

#391

Post by tavavex »

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…

Other people have already pointed out the differences between implementing a check for a specific banned print and a vague categorical ban. It would be like if printer manufacturers weren't just asked to prevent the printing of US dollars, but anything that looks like money, having an ability to detect if something is money-like based on look and feel alone, without relying on an existing database or hardcoded watermarks.

Your implication makes me think that you assume that this useful-yet-not-overreaching detection tech is possible. Do you have any ideas for how this would be implemented? Because in my mind, the only way to ensure compliance would be either a manual check (uplink to the manufacturer or relevant government authority, where an employee or a model trained on known gun models tries to estimate the probability of a print being part of a gun) or a deterministic algorithm that makes blanket bans on anything remotely gun-like (pipe-like parts, parts where any mechanical action is similar to anything that could be in a gun). These scenarios seem to be both a lot more annoying and a lot more invasive. There's no negative consequences for tuning detection to always err on the side of caution and flood the user with false-positive refusals to print. Both scenarios are obviously a lot more involved and complicated than a basic algorithm checking if you're trying to print an image of a US dollar. Therefore I don't see a reason why drawing this comparison is useful. The only thing these implementations have in common is that they're detecting something.

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

#392

Post by int_19h »

nish__ wrote: post #328
nerdsniper wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll just build my own 3D printer lol. Did it college 15 years ago. I’ll do it again.

"And when you're done that, can you build another one and sell it to me?" You see how it's impossible to regulate technology? I don't want my tax dollars funding impossible missions.

> And when you're done that, can you build another one and sell it to me?

Yep, that's exactly what the fed undercover will say.

And sure, they can't catch everyone, but they don't have to. They just need to catch and visibly prosecute enough people to create a chilling effect. It's about making it harder, not making it impossible.

Whether the cost/benefit here justifies those gains is a different question.

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

#393

Post by thayne »

shiroiuma wrote: post #345
mystraline wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This is how its always been" is one of the banes of my existence. It explains why we're here, but not how to do better. There are ways to do better. A national holiday for elections has been mentioned countless times. We could do like Australia and mandate required voting. Prisoners should be able to vote. But this country is too hell-bent on punishment. Registration can be made on the same day of voting, rather tha…

>"This is how its always been" is one of the banes of my existence. It explains why we're here, but not how to do better. This is true, but it's also very useful in assigning blame (or avoiding assigning it improperly). So for all the people who complain about all the people who didn't vote, and try to blame them for Trump's election, we can just point to the historical record for voting in US presidential elections.…

I didn't see anyone blaming non-voters. The argument is that a majority of Americans didn't vote for this, because most Americans didn't vote at all. (Also, of those that did vote, less than 50% voted for Trump).

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

#394

Post by thayne »

pton_xd wrote: post #310
mystraline wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. I'll bite. The majority in this country is "didn't vote". Multitudes of reasons for this. They forgot. They dont care. They missed the registration deadline. They're homeless, and no address. They can't get proper papers, even though they are US born. They're in prison/jail. The candidates suck, so you dont vote. Can't afford to take time off work. They've been gerrymandered, so their votes are significantly de…

It's always been this way. According to Google 64% of the voting age population voted in 2024. In 1972 it was 56%, in 1976 it was 55%, in 1980 it was 55%, in 1984 it was 56%... you get the idea [0]. [0] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/vitalst...

That doesn't change the fact that the majority of Americans didn't vote for Trump. In fact, the majority of people who did vote didn't vote for Trump. Yes, he won the "popular vote", but that just means he got more votes than anyone else, not more than half of the votes.

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

#395

Post by estimator7292 »

int_19h wrote: post #392
nish__ wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"And when you're done that, can you build another one and sell it to me?" You see how it's impossible to regulate technology? I don't want my tax dollars funding impossible missions.

> And when you're done that, can you build another one and sell it to me? Yep, that's exactly what the fed undercover will say. And sure, they can't catch everyone, but they don't have to. They just need to catch and visibly prosecute enough people to create a chilling effect. It's about making it harder, not making it impossible. Whether the cost/benefit here justifies those gains is a different question.

The RIAA tried that. It did not go well for them, and piracy has never been more prevalent or easy.

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

#396

Post by namlem »

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #249
kart23 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

NJ and CA. You can't make guns at all in NJ, and you need a firearm permit to buy an airgun or bb gun.

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

#397

Post by estimator7292 »

dylan604 wrote: post #23
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?

I was going to post a similar comment, and then decided against it. I realized I haven't used Windows as a daily driver in decades and thought maybe there was a new use for it that I was not familiar. Glad to see I wasn't the only one confused by it. Closest I could come was they were going to lock out the user, but that was Windows-L or something wasn't it?

Meta+L is the lock hotkey on all major operating systems!

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

#398

Post by rolph »

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...

theres a procedural problem with this, and its apparently why the feds dont require serial number on a PMF until FFL transfer is about to occur

when should you be required to serialize it?

if you serialize after it is worked to the point of being a firearm, then there is a period in time, however short, when the firearm is unserialized, thus illegal, thus serializing after creation could be obscuring a crime.

vs serializing before firearmhood, and you are now requireing a "hunk of metal" to be serialized because of what it MAY become in the future.

and just when does a hunk of metal start becoming a firearm, the so called 80% threshold

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

#399

Post by thayne »

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…

> who this is coming from and why

I would suspect it is at least partly because the gun that killed the United Healthcare CEO was partly 3D printed.

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

#400

Post by int_19h »

Neeek wrote: post #285
torginus wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it - afaik you can get every single part of a gun except for the lower receiver/pistol frame without any restriction - as those parts are legally defined as the 'gun' - the rest are just replacement parts. Even for those, you can get 80% finished parts for those - just drill a few holes, and file off some tidbits, and you get an almost factory-spec gun. I'm no expert on US gun law, but afaik, some states…

The only usable part a plastic 3D printer will make for you is the receiver, which is the whole point, to circumvent that very narrow legal classification. You're right about alternative lawmaking avenues, but given the 2a pushback on controlling "replacement parts" Americans are kind of stuck with the bed they made.

That was the case like 3 years ago. Things have advanced significantly since then.
Post reply on HN