Wednesday, May 15, 2013

US government attempts to stifle 3D-printer gun designs will ultimately fail | James Ball

5:31 AM | Posted by Free Game Zone | | Edit Post

as the "war against drugs", trying to regulate 3D printing can be an invitation to disaster, however honorable intentions

On the Internet, things escalate fast - very fast. It starts with the plans of the first "full" 3D Printer gun (not quite complete: neither bullets nor hammer printable).

Cody Wilson, who designed the prototype drawings published online for anyone to download. After two days, and 100,000 downloads, the State Department ordered the killing.

plans explained in violation of United States controls on arms exports. The problem is not Americans have downloaded the plans, but the risk sanctioned groups somewhat abstract, or those affected by export bans discharge of weapons plans and printing.

The result of these good intentions certainly was predictable: it had exactly the opposite effect of what the State Department wanted. There is a famous Internet phenomenon - the Streisand effect - that, in short, says that there is no better way to promote an image, a story or upload to the Internet ban

news readers on the project soared, research has soared, the same models are already in use on the network file sharing Pirate Bay, including peer-to-peer and sites.

This is a very early - and ultimately, probably insignificant - cock-up in what could easily sink into a prolonged war online. Few people have 3D printers, and today it is not the best way to control illegal weapons. The design itself is supposed to be a "Saturday Night Special", perhaps a weapon dangerous to the user that the person concerned.

  • But the broader political risk could be is huge. This is a ban that will be almost impossible to achieve:. Like almost all companies in the music show, stop sharing files online with the ban sites or devices more or less similar to the arrest of a tsunami with a bucket
  • Another approach might be to try to prohibit or regulate 3D printers themselves. It is stifling a potentially revolutionary technology to treat a hypothetical risk - and that's even before the practical problems of the definition of a 3D printer for the legislation. It must be defined in general terms of a law to be effective, but just enough so that the police did not have half of the equipment used in the manufacture of everyday. It is likely a vain ambition.
And that before getting anywhere near the U.S. Constitution, which is where things get really difficult. There is a common argument that had some sympathy for the American courts that code is speech. If the code is speech, then the planes are undoubtedly the word too. And speaking as any American schoolchild knows, is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

As if that was not enough of a deterrent, trying to legislate or prosecute 3D printing could be one of the first subjects of history that unites the first and second amendment activists in same case. That would certainly be enough to give pause to many members of Congress.

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Blogger Template created with Artisteer.