6 ms·

> The state should prosecute people who make illegal thing, not add useless surveillance software on every tool in every classroom, library, and garage in the s

> The state should prosecute people who make illegal thing, not add useless surveillance software on every tool in every classroom, library, and garage in the state. This bill is analogous to requiring text editors to verify that a document does not contain defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, child porn, etc., before it saves the file. In first amendment terms that led to the conclusion that prior restraint on publication is incompatible with the amendment. The same doctrine should be extended to the second amendment for the same reasons. The alternative is intolerable surveillance.

ottah 8mo ago
3d printing is also a creative expression and part of free speech. However principles don't matter to authoritarians, and really the only defense is constant political pressure and civil disobedience.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- kube-system 8mo ago
  The model files and designs are protected speech, yes.... but free speech doesn't really follow the transitive property. Just because you can have a copy of the Anarchists Cookbook doesn't mean that building the things in the book are protected speech.
  - SauciestGNU 8mo ago
    Not in California but generally 3d printing or otherwise self-manufacturing firearms is legal per the 2nd amendment, and publishing files is protected expressive activity (I bet there are some ITAR cutouts for weapons but I suspect that doesn't come into play here).
    - kube-system 8mo ago
      Self-manufacturing is definitely federally legal by statute but I don't think it is entirely clear that a constitutional right to self-manufacturing is incorporated to states or localities. Heller never mentioned manufacturing. And on top of that, there is no protected right to 3d printers. Regardless, it is 1000% more clear that states can't ban you from sending around gun design files.
      - 15155 8mo ago
        Bruen requires a historical analogue: home manufacture of arms is practically an American tradition.
  - ottah 8mo ago
    The state applying strict scrutiny is an intimidation tactic that infringes legitimate speech. We also know very well that none of these systems will work well and that the DOJ will be happy to apply bans as far as they can get away with. It will be the no fly list for physical objects, and we won't even be told what is explicitly banned. We'll just not be able to print something. It will be very hard to argue to argue to the courts and at that point the harm is done, and there is no real effective remedy. They've already blocked and discouraged a legitimate right.
    - kube-system 8mo ago
      There are thousands of physical objects for which possession is already controlled.
      - ottah 8mo ago
        Which physical objects that you make in your home, are actively monitored by the police as you make them? When I bake something in my oven, would it be reasonable for the DEA to have a camera in my kitchen to ensure I do not make weed brownies?
        kube-system 8mo ago
        I think you are a little confused because the title is a little bit editorialized, but, this law doesn’t monitor anything in anyone’s home. It controls the commercial sales of 3d printers.
        ottah 8mo ago
        No, I am not. "This bill would require, on or before July 1, 2028, any business that produces or manufactures 3-dimensional printers for sale or transfer in California to submit to the department an attestation for each make and model of printer they intend to make available for sale or transfer in California, confirming, among other things, that the manufacturer has equipped that make and model with a certified firearm blueprint detection algorithm." This in my opinion is the state monitoring me in my own home. You can split hairs on semantics, but the effect is the same if machine learning or a person does it.
WillAdams 8mo ago
1st Amendment + 2nd Amendment == The Right to 3D Print and Bear Arms Moreover, how could this be implemented? Determining the 3D volume which a given G-code file will result in is something which the industry would find very useful, but no one has yet achieved. Doing so would probably simultaneously result in the folks doing so being awarded a Fields Medal and the Turing Award (in addition to making a boatload of money licensing the resultant software/patent). On top of that, how does one resolve the matter of the same G-code file (for two nested circles plus some machine-specific codes) resulting in either a metal washer, or a lamp base, depending on whether run on a machine set to metric w/ a coolant system, or Imperial w/ a tool changer? Lastly, who creates the list of forbidden parts? How will it be curated? And most importantly, how will it be secured that it isn't a set of blueprints which are then used to make firearms? A more reasonable bit of legislation would be one which required folks who are barred by statute from owning firearms (convicted felons (who have not had their rights restored)/convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse) to approve with their parole officer any file for a part/object made by a 3D printer or CNC machine before submitting it to the machine.
- tracker1 8mo ago
  I'll be honest, I've always been mixed on prohibiting parolees and ex-cons from owning firearms in the first place. I think the right itself as part of self-defense is pretty clear and self-evident. I also don't like secondary crimes in general. Killing is bad... killing because you don't like $group is double-bad. Speeding is bad, speeding without a seatbelt is double-bad. etc. If you are such a danger to society that you shouldn't be allowed to be armed in case of defense, then you probably shouldn't be in society and remain locked up. That's just my take on it. I feel similarly on taking away voting rights after prison as well. I may not like how you vote, but I'm just not a fan of taking away people's rights outside prison/jail.
  - WillAdams 8mo ago
    Too expensive/punitive, and note that there is an option to be restored to full citizenship after time served/restitution is made. My take on it is that if your judgement is so twisted that you are able to commit a felony and not be able to successfully petition for rights restoration, then you are not suited to deciding by whom the country should be governed.
nwellinghoff 8mo ago
This reflects a lack of technical understanding of the subject. The proposal is not enforceable, as there is no control over the end user’s networking stack. E.g. you can't actually rely on "3D printers that report themselves". The law makers need our help and some technical consultation.
- lokar 8mo ago
  The manufacturer can simply require that all prints go through their proprietary software, or better, cloud service for validation before the printer will accept them. The person proposing this, and/or their staff certainly knows this.
- c22 8mo ago
  It's okay, we just need a new tax to cover the mandatory sim chips that will need to be installed in compliant printers (which will not be permitted to be operated in metal buildings or basements, of course.)
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
chickenimprint 8mo ago
This policy has existed for (non-3D) printers and image editing programs for decades now. They will refuse to print currency or anything with a specific watermark.

ottah 8mo ago

3d printing is also a creative expression and part of free speech. However principles don't matter to authoritarians, and really the only defense is constant political pressure and civil disobedience.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
kube-system 8mo ago
The model files and designs are protected speech, yes.... but free speech doesn't really follow the transitive property. Just because you can have a copy of the Anarchists Cookbook doesn't mean that building the things in the book are protected speech.
- SauciestGNU 8mo ago
  Not in California but generally 3d printing or otherwise self-manufacturing firearms is legal per the 2nd amendment, and publishing files is protected expressive activity (I bet there are some ITAR cutouts for weapons but I suspect that doesn't come into play here).
  - kube-system 8mo ago
    Self-manufacturing is definitely federally legal by statute but I don't think it is entirely clear that a constitutional right to self-manufacturing is incorporated to states or localities. Heller never mentioned manufacturing. And on top of that, there is no protected right to 3d printers. Regardless, it is 1000% more clear that states can't ban you from sending around gun design files.
    - 15155 8mo ago
      Bruen requires a historical analogue: home manufacture of arms is practically an American tradition.
- ottah 8mo ago
  The state applying strict scrutiny is an intimidation tactic that infringes legitimate speech. We also know very well that none of these systems will work well and that the DOJ will be happy to apply bans as far as they can get away with. It will be the no fly list for physical objects, and we won't even be told what is explicitly banned. We'll just not be able to print something. It will be very hard to argue to argue to the courts and at that point the harm is done, and there is no real effective remedy. They've already blocked and discouraged a legitimate right.
  - kube-system 8mo ago
    There are thousands of physical objects for which possession is already controlled.
    - ottah 8mo ago
      Which physical objects that you make in your home, are actively monitored by the police as you make them? When I bake something in my oven, would it be reasonable for the DEA to have a camera in my kitchen to ensure I do not make weed brownies?
      - kube-system 8mo ago
        I think you are a little confused because the title is a little bit editorialized, but, this law doesn’t monitor anything in anyone’s home. It controls the commercial sales of 3d printers.
        ottah 8mo ago
        No, I am not. "This bill would require, on or before July 1, 2028, any business that produces or manufactures 3-dimensional printers for sale or transfer in California to submit to the department an attestation for each make and model of printer they intend to make available for sale or transfer in California, confirming, among other things, that the manufacturer has equipped that make and model with a certified firearm blueprint detection algorithm." This in my opinion is the state monitoring me in my own home. You can split hairs on semantics, but the effect is the same if machine learning or a person does it.

WillAdams 8mo ago

1st Amendment + 2nd Amendment == The Right to 3D Print and Bear Arms Moreover, how could this be implemented? Determining the 3D volume which a given G-code file will result in is something which the industry would find very useful, but no one has yet achieved. Doing so would probably simultaneously result in the folks doing so being awarded a Fields Medal and the Turing Award (in addition to making a boatload of money licensing the resultant software/patent). On top of that, how does one resolve the matter of the same G-code file (for two nested circles plus some machine-specific codes) resulting in either a metal washer, or a lamp base, depending on whether run on a machine set to metric w/ a coolant system, or Imperial w/ a tool changer? Lastly, who creates the list of forbidden parts? How will it be curated? And most importantly, how will it be secured that it isn't a set of blueprints which are then used to make firearms? A more reasonable bit of legislation would be one which required folks who are barred by statute from owning firearms (convicted felons (who have not had their rights restored)/convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse) to approve with their parole officer any file for a part/object made by a 3D printer or CNC machine before submitting it to the machine.

tracker1 8mo ago
I'll be honest, I've always been mixed on prohibiting parolees and ex-cons from owning firearms in the first place. I think the right itself as part of self-defense is pretty clear and self-evident. I also don't like secondary crimes in general. Killing is bad... killing because you don't like $group is double-bad. Speeding is bad, speeding without a seatbelt is double-bad. etc. If you are such a danger to society that you shouldn't be allowed to be armed in case of defense, then you probably shouldn't be in society and remain locked up. That's just my take on it. I feel similarly on taking away voting rights after prison as well. I may not like how you vote, but I'm just not a fan of taking away people's rights outside prison/jail.
- WillAdams 8mo ago
  Too expensive/punitive, and note that there is an option to be restored to full citizenship after time served/restitution is made. My take on it is that if your judgement is so twisted that you are able to commit a felony and not be able to successfully petition for rights restoration, then you are not suited to deciding by whom the country should be governed.

nwellinghoff 8mo ago

This reflects a lack of technical understanding of the subject. The proposal is not enforceable, as there is no control over the end user’s networking stack. E.g. you can't actually rely on "3D printers that report themselves". The law makers need our help and some technical consultation.

lokar 8mo ago
The manufacturer can simply require that all prints go through their proprietary software, or better, cloud service for validation before the printer will accept them. The person proposing this, and/or their staff certainly knows this.
c22 8mo ago
It's okay, we just need a new tax to cover the mandatory sim chips that will need to be installed in compliant printers (which will not be permitted to be operated in metal buildings or basements, of course.)
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

chickenimprint 8mo ago

This policy has existed for (non-3D) printers and image editing programs for decades now. They will refuse to print currency or anything with a specific watermark.