It is not that they don't understand how the internet works, but legally you cannot export blueprints about weapons without an export license. The State Department is absolutely correct. Blueprints of weapons cannot be exported. Everyone in the firearm/defense industry knows this.
The ITAR rules are even worse for some types of equipment. For example it is a felony to allow a foreigners (non-citizens or non-green card holders) to look through high-end (Gen III) night vision equipment. Guns shops all over the country unwittingly violate this rule every day. Technical discussions of night vision equipment on a forums accessible from foreigners is also illegal.
Edit: Also worth pointing out that those model files are also being hosted on GitHub [0]
Wow. According to the government's theories, I as a dual citizen of the USA and Canada am not allowed access to this stuff because for ITAR purposes I count as a Canadian national.
I wonder whether under the 14th they actually have the right to restrict my 2nd amendment rights in this way. That's in addition to the obvious 1st amendment issues.
(I somehow thought that the USA lost The USA vs the Progressive but Wikipedia corrected me that the case was dropped after it was obviously moot.)
I was originally going to rage a bunch about the government here, but then I saw they were invoking ITAR, and I was like "yeah, okay, that is the one card they could've played that I wouldn't have complained about".
Then again, it's not like blueprints for single-shot infantry weapons are exactly the key to America's military supremacy, the loss of which will result in the final storming of our golden cities by barbarous hordes.
Were somebody to post up a mod of their RepRap fabbing an explosive lens or something, now that would be interesting to watch the banhammer on.
Is this situation like crypto in the 90's where you just had to have an agreement stating you were a US citizen (or whatever), and a checkbox, then it was all ok, or do you have to actively verify they're a US citizen?
From what I have read of Cody, this is exactly the sort of reaction he was hoping to receive.
Perhaps he should have had the CAD file printed and bound as a book...
Edit: Nevermind, he's already ahead of me: "Wilson argues his activities are legit, because ITAR doesn’t apply to information sold in a library, and conveniently has his being sold in an undisclosed Austin, Texas, bookstore."
ITAR defines export as transferring an article or technical data (§ 120.7).
Technical data, by definition, is not in the public domain (§ 120.10.5).
DEFCAD claims the files are in the public domain, i.e., available in bookstores (§ 120.11.1) and libraries open to the public (§ 120.11.4). So they cannot qualify as technical data to satisfy the export requirement.
Also the reaction expected from anyone who understands that the state will do anything to protect its hegemony, regardless of whether its actions will actually be effective or not (as many citizens in many countries know all too well what they get away with on a daily basis despite or in ignorance of written laws). With predictable actors, it's hard not make it work to one's advantage.
By issuing a takedown notice to the maintainer of the blueprint, it's very unlikely that they're going to stop the flow of information. Additionally, it turns out it's probably not effective to stop them from distributing the blueprints now that they're already on the internet.
We're probably not going to see a massive number of these come into existence because the printers aren't exactly a commodity yet. I imagine the people who own these printers, and the printing services will notice what's being printed, and that's probably the best place to control these.
"The idea of the darknet is based upon three assumptions:
1) Any widely distributed object will be available to a fraction of users in a form that permits copying.
2) Users will copy objects if it is possible and interesting to do so.
3) Users are connected by high-bandwidth channels.
The darknet is the distribution network that emerges from the injection of objects according to assumption 1 and the distribution of those objects according to assumptions 2 and 3."
I doubt the general effectiveness of the Streisand effect, since it seems like exactly the kind of thing that would be subject to selection bias: the examples of people trying to stop the spread of information that you know of are of course mainly those where it failed. That you can name many more examples of it failing doesn't mean that there aren't lots of examples of it working that you have no way of knowing about.
If the gun is a one-shot gun, could the gun not include a bullet also, as well as a receptacle for gunpowder? Could a 100% plastic gun with plastic bullet be lethal up close? Could one place the gunpowder during printing and seal it? Could the gunpowder be ignited by static electricity for firing the gun? Answer these questions and metal detectors become useless.
So, this attracts the ire of the state department. Yet, something like this (http://aresarmor.com/store/Item/TACMHL15) is actually approved by the ATF as not being a firearm. You just need some basic machining skills (thanks MIT OpenCourseWare) and access to basic tools (thanks local hackerspace) to have a fully operational AR-15 which does not need to be registered.
Why should the law make sense? It's a bunch of arbitrary rules put in place via largely reactionary pressure.
If you don't refactor code occasionally you end up with weird corner cases that don't make any sense. The laws of our nation haven't been refactored in any substantial way, ever. It's patches all the way down to the Constitution.
I'm nothing close to a lawyer, but I bet the people you linked to would indeed get in trouble if they started shipping their parts overseas.
The law (ITAR[1] and the Arms Control Export Act[2]) wasn't designed to keep home-milled ArmaLite parts out of the hands of US citizens. The goal was to prevent someone like Lockheed from doing something like selling stealth fighters to an adversary without checking in with someone first. It's basically written as banning the export of military technology to foreign countries without the proper paperwork.
Apparently, to the folks at the State Department, stuff like PGP[3] and plans for a 3D-printable gun count as "military technology" and putting it on the internet counts as "export". That's pretty different from the ATF deciding that a lower receiver without holes in it doesn't need a firearms dealer for a transfer.
"You just need some basic machining skills (thanks MIT OpenCourseWare)"
I wish I could learn this kind of stuff from OCW. There's some text descriptions of how lathes and milling machine work in one of their courses (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanical-engineering/2-670-mech...), but not enough to make me comfortable with either tool.
I've been looking for a place around my city (Toronto) where I could take a weekend or evening classes about machining skills, but haven't had much luck. So, I think you're underestimating the difficultly of getting basic machining skills in our post-industrial society. Though I agree with your main point.
Would a US citizen seeding this file to a foreign peer potentially violate export rules and be at risk of major legal trouble if the US gov went down that road?
While I'm not super excited about people printing 3D guns, it seems like it's probably still cheaper to buy an illegal gun than it is to buy a 3D printer with the material to print a functioning firearm (last I checked 3D printers were still ~$500+; and even legal guns can be as cheap as ~$100)... I'm not sure that this publicized letter helps the situation any. There is the interesting topic of "gun legislation" as well... once any individual can manufacture Thing X, how do you (or do you?) legislate control of it?
It would be great if the first major, widespread, TPB-distributed 3D printed-thing was something less controversial, but such is life. There are people in jail for "hacking" and a huge variety of other issues, while one can apparently print guns without any legal ramifications. I am not saying that one is better or worse than the other - just drawing attention to how poor our legislative process is when it comes to handling _any_ technological advances whatsoever.
The question might be more about marginal cost. What would it cost a militia to outfit themselves with a thousand illegal guns, versus the material and power to print a thousand guns? If printing is cheaper, how much more likely does this make the creation of militias?
Of course the short hairs here are that Cody has an FFL and they can revoke that in a heartbeat for pretty much any reason. Way back in the cypherpunk days (when 'strong' crypto was a weapon) there was a thought experiment to have someone cross into the US illegally, then tattoo on their skin the code that implemented the RSA algorithm, and then turn themselves in to be deported, thus inducing a violation by the INS. I don't think it went anywhere, the other idea was a billboard in the US with the code on it you could read while standing in Mexico (this would work for Canada as well).
But poking fun aside, much of the same issues that arose with that effort are in this new 'threat'. The key here is the 3D printer, next up they will be a restricted export item like really nice machine tools.
Nowadays you could paint the algorithm on the side of a wall near a road and wait for Google streetview to pick it up or paint it really big on a paved area and wait for Google Earth to pick it up.
This is the beginning of a much longer roller coaster. It opens the door to a public demand for more surveillance, and debate over what kinds of data are allowed to exist.
There is no formal list of procedures you need to protect ITAR information. You need to use something like "standard security procedures" to keep the information away from foreigners.
What this means in practice is you consult your organizations lawyers, draft a policy, and follow it to the letter so you don't go to jail. You personally are liable (jail time and fines) if the information leaks out. Having an approved policy that you are following is really the only protection.
Why would anyone respond to a request from the State Department to remove plans for a 3-D gun? What jurisdictional claim and standing does SD have here? I see none.
And this is an old technology firearm created with a new technology printing device. Plans for firearms are all over the internet. What makes this one fall under SD rule?
I will be lazy and ask here instead of looking it up: Is the barrel 3D-printed too? Out of what material? I'm having trouble accepting the idea that a 3D-printed barrel can withstand the pressure of firing normal ammunition.
Yup, barrel is printed as well. Entire gun is ABS plastic, which sounds absurd until you realize that it's only a .22 being fired through it, and it's only intended to be used for one shot. This round is so weak that it's explosive charge is comparable to the primer charge on other rounds.
Only two things aren't printed, the firing pin (which is a nail), and an additional hunk of metal that goes in it so it will be detectable with a metal detector (there are other laws against "stealth" weapons that have no metal in them).
> What steps need to be taken so that we can legally possess a 3D printed gun?
None. It's perfectly legal in all states at the moment.
What we need to do is protect the status quo. There are clowns in New York and at the federal level who are already talking about banning 3D printed guns.
This reminds me of cryptography export in the 1990s. The government's case did not hold up in court and now you can write as much as you want about cryptography.
[+] [-] steve19|13 years ago|reply
The ITAR rules are even worse for some types of equipment. For example it is a felony to allow a foreigners (non-citizens or non-green card holders) to look through high-end (Gen III) night vision equipment. Guns shops all over the country unwittingly violate this rule every day. Technical discussions of night vision equipment on a forums accessible from foreigners is also illegal.
Edit: Also worth pointing out that those model files are also being hosted on GitHub [0]
[0] https://github.com/maduce/defcad-repo
[+] [-] btilly|13 years ago|reply
I wonder whether under the 14th they actually have the right to restrict my 2nd amendment rights in this way. That's in addition to the obvious 1st amendment issues.
(I somehow thought that the USA lost The USA vs the Progressive but Wikipedia corrected me that the case was dropped after it was obviously moot.)
[+] [-] glenra|13 years ago|reply
Wow. That seems incredibly stupid. How did this manage to survive first amendment challenges? Or has it not been tested?
[+] [-] hawleyal|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maratd|13 years ago|reply
The State Department is legally correct and morally bankrupt. What a disgusting restriction on my first amendment rights.
Whatever I create or modify is my right to distribute as I see fit, regardless of what I created. Period. There's an absolute for you.
[+] [-] angersock|13 years ago|reply
Then again, it's not like blueprints for single-shot infantry weapons are exactly the key to America's military supremacy, the loss of which will result in the final storming of our golden cities by barbarous hordes.
Were somebody to post up a mod of their RepRap fabbing an explosive lens or something, now that would be interesting to watch the banhammer on.
[+] [-] tlrobinson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baddox|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlgreco|13 years ago|reply
Perhaps he should have had the CAD file printed and bound as a book...
Edit: Nevermind, he's already ahead of me: "Wilson argues his activities are legit, because ITAR doesn’t apply to information sold in a library, and conveniently has his being sold in an undisclosed Austin, Texas, bookstore."
[+] [-] tantalor|13 years ago|reply
Let's break it down,
ITAR defines export as transferring an article or technical data (§ 120.7).
Technical data, by definition, is not in the public domain (§ 120.10.5).
DEFCAD claims the files are in the public domain, i.e., available in bookstores (§ 120.11.1) and libraries open to the public (§ 120.11.4). So they cannot qualify as technical data to satisfy the export requirement.
[+] [-] cinquemb|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sargun|13 years ago|reply
By issuing a takedown notice to the maintainer of the blueprint, it's very unlikely that they're going to stop the flow of information. Additionally, it turns out it's probably not effective to stop them from distributing the blueprints now that they're already on the internet.
We're probably not going to see a massive number of these come into existence because the printers aren't exactly a commodity yet. I imagine the people who own these printers, and the printing services will notice what's being printed, and that's probably the best place to control these.
[+] [-] pacaro|13 years ago|reply
"The idea of the darknet is based upon three assumptions:
1) Any widely distributed object will be available to a fraction of users in a form that permits copying.
2) Users will copy objects if it is possible and interesting to do so.
3) Users are connected by high-bandwidth channels.
The darknet is the distribution network that emerges from the injection of objects according to assumption 1 and the distribution of those objects according to assumptions 2 and 3."
See "The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution" - http://msl1.mit.edu/ESD10/docs/darknet5.pdf
[+] [-] kybernetikos|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swamp40|13 years ago|reply
There are 350 million real, fully functional, STEEL barreled firearms in the US today.
The epitome of 750 years of tweaks and improvements.
SURELY one of those would be easier to obtain (and safer to fire)if you wanted a gun.
[+] [-] chris_mahan|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lololomg|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] iterion1|13 years ago|reply
Seriously?
[+] [-] msandford|13 years ago|reply
If you don't refactor code occasionally you end up with weird corner cases that don't make any sense. The laws of our nation haven't been refactored in any substantial way, ever. It's patches all the way down to the Constitution.
[+] [-] oostevo|13 years ago|reply
The law (ITAR[1] and the Arms Control Export Act[2]) wasn't designed to keep home-milled ArmaLite parts out of the hands of US citizens. The goal was to prevent someone like Lockheed from doing something like selling stealth fighters to an adversary without checking in with someone first. It's basically written as banning the export of military technology to foreign countries without the proper paperwork.
Apparently, to the folks at the State Department, stuff like PGP[3] and plans for a 3D-printable gun count as "military technology" and putting it on the internet counts as "export". That's pretty different from the ATF deciding that a lower receiver without holes in it doesn't need a firearms dealer for a transfer.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Export_Control_Act
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_R...
[3] http://stason.org/TULARC/security/pgp/99-Appendix-VI-A-State...
[+] [-] malexw|13 years ago|reply
I wish I could learn this kind of stuff from OCW. There's some text descriptions of how lathes and milling machine work in one of their courses (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanical-engineering/2-670-mech...), but not enough to make me comfortable with either tool.
I've been looking for a place around my city (Toronto) where I could take a weekend or evening classes about machining skills, but haven't had much luck. So, I think you're underestimating the difficultly of getting basic machining skills in our post-industrial society. Though I agree with your main point.
[+] [-] ics|13 years ago|reply
https://thepiratebay.sx/search/defcad/0/99/0
[+] [-] AdamTReineke|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hayksaakian|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tlrobinson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mindcrime|13 years ago|reply
How well has trying to remove content from the Internet worked out for you in past?
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Thanks,
Mindcrime
[+] [-] fixxer|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mbillie1|13 years ago|reply
It would be great if the first major, widespread, TPB-distributed 3D printed-thing was something less controversial, but such is life. There are people in jail for "hacking" and a huge variety of other issues, while one can apparently print guns without any legal ramifications. I am not saying that one is better or worse than the other - just drawing attention to how poor our legislative process is when it comes to handling _any_ technological advances whatsoever.
[+] [-] derefr|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|13 years ago|reply
But poking fun aside, much of the same issues that arose with that effort are in this new 'threat'. The key here is the 3D printer, next up they will be a restricted export item like really nice machine tools.
[+] [-] glenra|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sage_joch|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dillona|13 years ago|reply
Would that be sufficient to get around ITAR? I wonder what would happen then
[+] [-] Game_Ender|13 years ago|reply
What this means in practice is you consult your organizations lawyers, draft a policy, and follow it to the letter so you don't go to jail. You personally are liable (jail time and fines) if the information leaks out. Having an approved policy that you are following is really the only protection.
[+] [-] mbillie1|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colechristensen|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giardini|13 years ago|reply
And this is an old technology firearm created with a new technology printing device. Plans for firearms are all over the internet. What makes this one fall under SD rule?
[+] [-] leephillips|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] olympus|13 years ago|reply
Only two things aren't printed, the firing pin (which is a nail), and an additional hunk of metal that goes in it so it will be detectable with a metal detector (there are other laws against "stealth" weapons that have no metal in them).
[+] [-] jlgreco|13 years ago|reply
Yes, and plastic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drPz6n6UXQY
[+] [-] GigabyteCoin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] salman89|13 years ago|reply
What steps need to be taken so that we can legally possess a 3D printed gun?
[+] [-] maratd|13 years ago|reply
None. It's perfectly legal in all states at the moment.
What we need to do is protect the status quo. There are clowns in New York and at the federal level who are already talking about banning 3D printed guns.
[+] [-] freddealmeida|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fixxer|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrockway|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] korethr|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cpursley|13 years ago|reply