109

California ghost-gun bill wants 3D printers to play cop, EFF says (www.theregister.com)

submitted 1 week ago by rssbot@lemmy.bestiver.se to c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 40 points 1 week ago

3d printers don't have particularly powerful computers. The 3d modeling and slicing (creating a plan to generate the model using the printer) is done on a PC. The printer just knows how to move the axes, heat the filament, etc.

If the 3d printer has to be able to recognize gun shapes and refuse to print them, it will need a much more powerful processor. And even then, what's the point? It's unworkable.

The person is going to be sitting at home with their own 3d printer. If it refuses to print something because it sees it as a gun part, the user can go over to their computer and modify the shape until the 3d printer no longer recognizes it. If the algorithm to detect a gun part is very strict, it will end up also blocking things that aren't gun parts, especially gun-like props.

If someone doesn't feel like fiddling with the shapes they're trying to print until the printer obeys, they can probably just install their own software. Some commercial printers will make that harder, but Amazon is a multi-billion dollar company and can't keep people from installing their own firmware on Kindles. There's no way that a smaller printer company will be able to lock down their printers. In addition, there are the open source printers, that are explicitly designed so that you can install your own firmware. I assume California is going to make that illegal -- a move that the closed-source printer companies will love.

If the law were passed, it might stop a hobbyist who wanted to try out printing a gun part just to see if they could. (Even though that's already illegal.) But, it won't stop anybody doing it as a business who can invest the time to get around the ban. So, all you'd do is hurt regular users while only mildly inconveniencing the main people you're trying to stop.

[-] Geobloke@aussie.zone 1 points 1 week ago

I mean photocopiers are already capable of refusing to print out money

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Most people don't have photocopiers in their homes. Plus, I think most people realize that producing fake money is much harder than just photocopying it.

IMO it's dumb that photocopiers do that, but it doesn't really inconvenience people. Plus, it doesn't add much complexity or cost to photocopiers since they're already built to scan and analyze images.

[-] RamenJunkie@midwest.social 3 points 1 week ago

The thing is, money is a specific thing. Its a copier trying to copy a thing with a set design and shape.

No one is 3D Printing an exaxt Glock (or whatever). You could probably 3D print a toy elephant statue that shoots bullets if you wanted to, the same way you could photocopy a drawing of an elephant, even if it has dollar signs next to it and says "1 Billion Elephant Bucks" on it.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Right. I think photocopiers are somewhat aggressive in their money detecting algorithms. I remember someone having a problem photocopying something that was obviously (to a human) not real currency. It wasn't even prop currency which is supposed to look real on camera. This was something for a game or a party or something.

I think the algorithms have to be a bit loose for the currency detection because there are new bills that are released, and many photocopiers aren't constantly connected to the Internet, and may not have the newest firmware.

But, for a gun, that's going to be a much harder matching problem, especially because it's a 3d object and after the print the user could snip things off or glue things together. Plus there's the constant remixing of 3d printed things where someone improves on a design and posts it and people adopt then adapt the new design. The only realistic way for it to work is for the printer to do some complex finite element analysis or something on everything anybody tried to print to see if maybe it could perform the function of a certain part of a gun. And that's absurd because that's something you need a workstation class PC to even consider doing, while 3d printers use chips that are... let's just say they can't run Doom.

[-] wheezy@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

You're overthinking it I think. It's less about actually stopping someone with the determination and skill than it is just the random idiot that wants to make one.

Laws like this aren't about stopping something entirely. It's about making it more difficult. A "minor inconvenience" to you may literally be a brick wall to other people. Or it may just be enough of an inconvenience to make them realize it's not worth doing.

Your last paragraph is basically explaining what this is for. Its really less about safety or anything and more about ensuring the profits of weapons manufacturers. So, you're right that it's not going to stop a determined person from printing parts. But, that's not who this is for. Even if they market it that way. That's just political marketing.

Some responsible citizen might find out they can 3D print a longer magazine. Something technically illegal in my state, but, if I go travel to a nearby state and purchase an even longer magazine than I plan to print. Well, that's entirely legal to take back into the state. Eh, why risk it?

So, again, it's more about profit protection than it is stopping someone that is malicious. It's another "step" that makes them actually consider the consequences of not giving money directly to weapons manufacturers.

It's about adding enough "risk" on paper, to the citizen that wants to just print something, that they instead just purchase it (either from another state) or locally. At least I'd say that's the primary purpose and outcome for this law specifically.

[-] merc@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 week ago

If it's about stopping a random idiot, then the existing laws should be fine.

The problem is that it's a minor inconvenience to determined criminals. At the same time, it's a industry-destroying law for 3d printer companies.

I also really don't think it's about ensuring the profits of weapons companies. Weapons companies are big and already fairly regulated. As a result, it's easy to keep an eye on them and ensure that if there are laws about what's legal and illegal to build and sell in the USA that those companies are following them. I think lawmakers are scared that with 3d printers in the hands of hundreds of thousands of people, it's much more difficult to ensure that the laws are being followed. It's about control, not profits.

[-] Grass@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

most of these can't even run doom and they want to run 3d recognition models on them?

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The authors of these bills are deeply untechnical.

[-] jeansburger@piefed.world 3 points 1 week ago

That's putting it mildly... These people call staffers into their office to help them send a fucking email or save a document in Word. I swear to god you could grind the whole country to a halt if you switched the icons on their PC.

To the FBI agent monitoring posts, my lawyers have advised me to say: this is a joke.

[-] Jiral@lemmy.org 15 points 1 week ago

What is next? That CNC with custom firmware is becoming a crime as well? Woodwork equipment as well?

[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 week ago

One 5G gunpowder detector for every foot of pipe, to prevent slam-fire shotguns.

[-] Headofthebored@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

What is the end game here? Can't own a drill press or a lathe? Chisles? Files? Taps and dies? Anything can be made manually, even out of trash. A computer just automates it. Is that gonna be illegal? What if I manually make something and then scan it into a computer? Illegal?