State Department Demands 3-D Gun Blueprints Be Removed

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.<p>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 <i>look through</i> 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.<p>Edit: Also worth pointing out that those model files are also being hosted on GitHub [0]<p>[0] <a href="https://github.com/maduce/defcad-repo" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/maduce/defcad-repo</a>

From what I have read of Cody, this is <i>exactly</i> the sort of reaction he was hoping to receive.<p>Perhaps he should have had the CAD file printed and bound as a book...<p>Edit: Nevermind, he's already ahead of me: <i>"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."</i>

I would like them to see the Streisand Effect: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect</a><p>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.<p>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.

3D guns are 99% useless, but 101% provocative in the current political environment.<p>There are 350 million real, fully functional, STEEL barreled firearms in the US today.<p>The epitome of 750 years of tweaks and improvements.<p>SURELY one of those would be easier to obtain (and safer to fire)if you wanted a gun.

So, this attracts the ire of the state department. Yet, something like this (<a href="http://aresarmor.com/store/Item/TACMHL15" rel="nofollow">http://aresarmor.com/store/Item/TACMHL15</a>) 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.<p>Seriously?

Who'da thunk it, the Pirate Bay now has a Physibles category! Can anyone guess which files are currently trending?<p><a href="https://thepiratebay.sx/search/defcad/0/99/0" rel="nofollow">https://thepiratebay.sx/search/defcad/0/99/0</a>

Dear State Department:<p>How well has trying to remove content from the Internet worked out for you in past?<p>Also: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect</a><p>Thanks,<p>Mindcrime

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?<p>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.

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).<p>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.

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.

It would be easy enough to set up a server to block non-US IPs.<p>Would that be sufficient to get around ITAR? I wonder what would happen then

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.<p>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.

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

This is an issue of disruption that can cause a large, politically entrenched gun market to fail being disguised as a gun control issue.<p>What steps need to be taken so that we can legally possess a 3D printed gun?

Has ITAR been challenged under the 1st Amendment?

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

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.

This xkcd seems appropriate: <a href="http://xkcd.com/504/" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/504/</a>

Well, the State Department can go &#60;bold&#62;fuck&#60;/bold&#62; themselves.

people will likely be able to cheaply manufacture guns on private property very soon.<p>is this a problem?

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.<p>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).<p>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.

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