State Department Demands 3-D Gun Blueprints Be Removed

http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/09/state-department-demands-3-d-gun-blueprints-be-removed/

by ktavera • 13 years ago

83 106 13 years ago

techcrunch.com

mindcrime• 13 years ago

Dear State Department:

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

fixxer2• 13 years ago

jinx!

fixxer2• 13 years ago

Streisand effect... bad move State, bad move.

sargun• 13 years ago

I would like them to see the Streisand Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

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

I see your Streisand and raise you one Darknet...

"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

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.

jlgreco6• 13 years ago

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."

cinquemb• 13 years ago

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.

tantalor• 13 years ago

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/itar/p120.htm#P120

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.

dillona• 13 years ago

It would be easy enough to set up a server to block non-US IPs.

Would that be sufficient to get around ITAR? I wonder what would happen then

colechristensen• 13 years ago

No. There are plenty of Non-US Persons (people without greencards or citizenship) in the U.S. and IP is not adequate identification anyway.

rkuykendall-com• 13 years ago

You're right. Luckily, the porn industry already has this covered.

    ARE YOU A US CITIZEN?

    [YES] [NO]

mbillie14• 13 years ago

As colechristensen said, IP is not adequate identification. Anyone with time to kill can proxy themselves into a US IP.

Game_Ender• 13 years ago

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.

ics• 13 years ago

Who'da thunk it, the Pirate Bay now has a Physibles category! Can anyone guess which files are currently trending?

https://thepiratebay.sx/search/defcad/0/99/0

hayksaakian• 13 years ago

1391 seeds, 109 peers at time of writing

AdamTReineke• 13 years ago

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?

adastra2• 13 years ago

Absolutely yes this is a risk. Do not do this. The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) is not something you want to mess with.

tlrobinson2• 13 years ago

Heh, after the defcad files there's "Guy Fawkes and Anonymous mask".

tks21035• 13 years ago

people will likely be able to cheaply manufacture guns on private property very soon.

is this a problem?

duncan_bayne• 13 years ago

This isn't a problem, and it isn't a new thing either:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm

tks21035• 13 years ago

do you think 3d printers will not significantly reduce the complexity of creating a firearm for the average citizen?

jlgreco6• 13 years ago

They already can. It has been possible and within reach for anyone who ever took a real shop class for as long as you can imagine. Not only is it possible, but it is in fact done in practice. A particularly famous example (of many): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyber_Pass_Copy

People are losing their marbles over this particular gun because it was put out there with the intention of being provocative. People fear what they are told to fear.

seanmcdirmid• 13 years ago

Improvised guns are a problem in China also, but it is also one of those crimes with an often applied death penalty.

I don't see 3D printing changing the situation very much, as the capability already exists and is harshly regulated.

shblt• 13 years ago

This is possible already on a on a larger, better quality scale.

You can legally make and own unregistered/unserialized AR-15s or other firearms as long as it’s for personal use; you can’t sell, gift or distribute them in anyway. It’s easier and more economical (for now) to buy a BATF compliant 80% finished AR-15 lower receiver then drill/machine the last 20%. You’d have a commercial quality firearm. I think it would be a lot easier to get your hands on a drill, jig and mill than a high quality 3D printer too. There are even build parties where a group of people bring/buy their unfinished lowers and an experienced machinist helps the group finish their firearms.

Again, these guns are unregistered (not in any database) and have no serial number (unless you decide to stamp it with an ID mark in case it gets stolen). There's also no record of the 80% lower sale because its unfinished and not considered a firearm yet.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html: “For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.”

cdjk2• 13 years ago

Correct, but you actually can sell them as long as they are not manufactured with the intent to sell. So you can't make a lower, take it to the range for a day and immediately sell it, but if you have one that is several years old it's probably fine to sell it or give it as a gift.

And my understanding is that it is generally considered a good idea to add a serial number, even if it's not legally required. It can make interactions with law enforcement easier if they're not aware of all these details.

iterion12• 13 years ago

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.

Seriously?

msandford2• 13 years ago

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.

mbillie14• 13 years ago

Half-baked, untested production patches at that.

ahallock• 13 years ago

Exactly. And that's the point and design. With a convoluted system in place, seemingly peaceful activities can land you in prison, or bankrupt you with legal fees. I only see the entropy accelerating.

malexw• 13 years ago

"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.

patrickyeon• 13 years ago

Here's a start from MIT: http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/ehs-videos/videos

oostevo• 13 years ago

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.

[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...

warmwaffles• 13 years ago

I'm interested on the PGP stuff with Zimmerman. If I encrypt a file using PGP and send it to a friend in Europe, would this act be in violation of ITAR or AECA?

If it is a violation, then how has HTTPS not been challenged?

iterion12• 13 years ago

True, but 3D plans for the AR-15 are also easy to find online. Which, I suppose, is a point I should have included.

GigabyteCoin• 13 years ago

In other news, the State Department has absolutely no idea how the internet works.

mbillie14• 13 years ago

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.

derefr• 13 years ago

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?

mbillie14• 13 years ago

I would much rather there be no 3D-gun-printing situation... but I'm not sure that I'm too concerned about militias, albeit only given the current state of 3D printers. There's a weird race between the capacity to manufacture anything at any time, and the ability to harvest sufficient energy to make the former not-so-important... and the former is in front right now. That is for sure a kind of scary thought. Plastic-gun-toting militias are probably not a big deal right now, but yeah... what if 3D metal printers become as prevalent as mobile phones? Hopefully some balancing technology will have also become so prevalent. If not, there are companies that make amazing tents, and there are lots of mountains and woods... :)

toomuchtodo4• 13 years ago

If you're a militia, you're going to purchase a laser sintering printer. What then? Restrict the purchase of metal powder?

steve19• 13 years ago

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]

[0] https://github.com/maduce/defcad-repo

glenra3• 13 years ago

> legally you cannot export blueprints about weapons without an export license.

Wow. That seems incredibly stupid. How did this manage to survive first amendment challenges? Or has it not been tested?

nness• 13 years ago

My knowledge is quite basic on the subject, but how would this be a first amendment issue?

fianchetto2• 13 years ago

> How did this manage to survive first amendment challenges?

This goes back to what Phil Zimmerman said about ITAR and such almost 20 years ago when they threw it at him for PGP:

"The Government has made it illegal in many cases to export good cryptographic technology, and that may include PGP. This is determined by volatile State Department policies, not fixed laws."

This has nothing to do with law and everything to do with those same volatile policies a generation later.

olympus4• 13 years ago

The law's main reason for existing isn't really about handguns, but that doesn't stop it for being applied to them. I don't think the U.S. government is really all that concerned about a single shot pistol, but someone got all in a tizzy about it and decided that it should be shut down before it becomes a problem (not that I agree with that thinking).

These export controls primarily exist to keep our advanced military technology out of enemy hands. I am not a lawyer, but I am reasonably certain that these laws would be upheld by the courts. Even though the first amendment promises free speech, the Supreme Court has said that there are some things you still aren't allowed to say, like "Fire!" in a movie theater. Things that could harm public safety, such as distributing weapons plans, are not protected under the first amendment.

angersock5• 13 years ago

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.

jlgreco6• 13 years ago

> 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.

I am not exactly sure what it is referring to, but the State Department's letter includes mention of a data file for a "125mm BK-14M high-explosive anti-tank warhead".

Maybe that is a model for a mold for warheads? I don't think anyone has a printer printing with high-explosives yet.

malandrew• 13 years ago

What is an explosive lens? (TBH, I'd google it, but knowing how the US is becoming, I feel more comfortable voicing my curiosity here, where my intents are obvious, then via search where some automated tool could flag my curiosity as intent.

hawleyal4• 13 years ago

TIL the internet constitutes import/export from country to country.

btilly2• 13 years ago

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.)

Radix_• 13 years ago

Is that really the case? I'd heard that the US did not technically recognize dual citizenship but other nations do. So wouldn't you technically be just a US citizen as far as the US is concerned?

tlrobinson2• 13 years ago

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?

maratd3• 13 years ago

> The State Department is absolutely correct.

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.

skrebbel• 13 years ago

That would render any country with any sort of weapons/alcohol/drugs control "morally bankrupt". So either I misunderstand your comment, or you're a libertarian nutcase(1) trying to hijack this thread.

(1) for the easily insulted, i do not imply that all libertarians are nutcases, but rather that libertarian nutcases are nutcases.

carbocation• 13 years ago

> 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.

This is a silly thing to say. Especially in a thread about weapons. Especially to say so in an "absolute" way.

You absolutely don't have the right to distribute chemical, biological, nuclear, or even some conventional weapons. Nor should you. I'm drawn to this extreme list because of your "absolute" assertion.

baddox• 13 years ago

Enforcing a stupid law doesn't make it any less stupid.

sage_joch• 13 years ago

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.

cpursley• 13 years ago

Well, the State Department can go <bold>fuck</bold> themselves.

giardini• 13 years ago

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?

aspensmonster• 13 years ago

I'd be more concerned about recently stolen state-of-the-art technology taking an early one-way flight westward on a thumb drive than I'd be about a plastic single-shot gun (that apparently isn't even stable; from what I've heard the thing has exploded before in testing). As others have said, producing weapons independently has been happening for ages; the processes and technology for pushing pieces of metal out of tubes at high speeds aren't overly complicated. Unregistered guns are still obtainable even if you can't hack one together yourself.

But this isn't the first time ITAR has been abused. Can you say strong cryptography?

swamp40• 13 years ago

3D guns are 99% useless, but 101% provocative in the current political environment.

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_mahan2• 13 years ago

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.

nsxwolf• 13 years ago

There is the possibility of manufacturing caseless ammo.

An exotic replacement for the firing pin isn't strictly necessary. A firing pin is too small to activate a metal detector. At least, the government thinks so, because guns are required to contain a minimum amount of metal for this purpose.

The current stories are neglecting to mention this, but an earlier Forbes article reported that the Liberator contains a 6 ounce piece of steel to remain compliant with the law on undetectable firearms.

leephillips• 13 years ago

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.

jlgreco6• 13 years ago

> Is the barrel 3D-printed too? Out of what material?

Yes, and plastic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drPz6n6UXQY

olympus4• 13 years ago

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).

steve-howard• 13 years ago

I was going to say, I think the last place I read about plastic firearms was in a Robert Ludlum novel (spy-thriller type stuff). Though if the "additional hunk of metal" is optional and included for plausible legality, I can see there being some political blowback regardless.

salman89• 13 years ago

This is an issue of disruption that can cause a large, politically entrenched gun market to fail being disguised as a gun control issue.

What steps need to be taken so that we can legally possess a 3D printed gun?

maratd3• 13 years ago

> 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.

freddealmeida• 13 years ago

Has ITAR been challenged under the 1st Amendment?

korethr• 13 years ago

This xkcd seems appropriate: http://xkcd.com/504/

robomartin• 13 years ago

I think everyone is failing to point out the sheer futility of this action based on the most fundamental of human traits: Our ability to solve problems creatively and make things.

I would be utterly stunned if 75% to 95% of mechanical engineers --anywhere in the world-- could not, given the task, design such a gun from scratch. I am not a mechanical engineer and I am 100% confident I could, if interested enough, do a good job of it (I rock at Solidworks and CNC).

This is one of those "you can't un-ring a bell" moments. The design is out and tons of people could design it all over again from first principles. Not sure what the government accomplished other than to make these files --and the general idea of a 3D printed gun-- really popular overnight.

jrockway• 13 years ago

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.

ChuckMcM• 13 years ago

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.

glenra3• 13 years ago

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.

State Department Demands 3-D Gun Blueprints Be Removed

Related Stories