5 ms·

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 Departm

by steve19 13y 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 https://github.com/maduce/defcad-repo

glenra 13y 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 13y ago
  My knowledge is quite basic on the subject, but how would this be a first amendment issue?
  - hawleyal 13y ago
    How is censorship of speech a violation of freedom of speech? AYFKM
    - tks2103 13y ago
      don't beg the question. there's no need for cursing.
      - hawleyal 13y ago
        That is not what "beg the question" means. Begging the question refers to a form of argument in which the final conclusion was earlier presented as a given. That is, a circular argument. I restated the question, to highlight the absurdity of it. That is not begging the question.
        tks2103 13y ago
        restating the thread: steve19: 'legally you cannot export blueprints about weapons without an export license' glenra: 'how did this manage to survive first amendment challenges?' nness: 'how would this be a first amendment issue?' in nness's comment, i am assuming 'this' is 'exporting blueprints about weapons without an export license' in other words: 'how would exporting blueprints about weapons without an export license be a first amendment issue?' you restated this as: 'how is censorship of speech a violation of freedom of speech?' first amendment issue very easily transforms to freedom of speech, but 'exporting blueprints about weapons' does not easily transform to 'censorship of speech' nness question is essentially 'how does exporting weapon blueprints relate to freedom of speech?' it is not an absurd question. you responded by equating 'exporting weapon blueprints' with 'censoring speech' with no argument, presupposing the conclusion from the question. ergo, begging the question.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    Nobody doubts the shutdown is to prevent citizens from seeing the files, not foreigners. Ergo, censorship.
    - hawleyal 13y ago
      It's censorship either way.
  - glenra 13y ago
    In most contexts we interpret "speech" quite broadly. Speech is the transmission of information. Blueprints consist of information structured in a particular meticulous way which can be beautiful as well as practical and informative. Novels and paintings also fit that description. A painting could show how a bomb is constructed. A novel could explain how to commit a crime. So I'm surprised public-domain blueprints aren't already considered "speech" as a matter of settled law. In the case of commercial blueprints I suppose I could imagine an argument for considering them "proprietary information", but in this case where the producer wants the information to get out and is not claiming copyright over it...posting a blueprint on the web is like posting a flyer on a telephone pole. It's a speech act. The federal government isn't generally allowed to prohibit speech acts.
- fianchetto 13y 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.
  - adastra 13y ago
    ITAR, like all US federal regulations codified in the CFR, have the full force and effect of the law. See the first couple paragraphs here for further explanation: http://library.law.unh.edu/AdminLaw http://library.law.unh.edu/AdminLaw How do you know if something is subject to ITAR? The State Department has a big list. It's called the US Munitions List (USML). At the time Zimmerman said that, PGP probably wasn't on the list. But I assure you, blueprints of guns are absolutely on the list.
    - fianchetto 13y ago
      > At the time Zimmerman said that, PGP probably wasn't on the list. It wasn't on the list yet, proving his point about volatility. > full force and effect of the law. All decrees, from Hammurabi onward, have the same qualities.
    - mgarfias 13y ago
      What's really funny is that 2d blueprints of the m16 and others exist and are readily accessible. Also, the army has published in the past various handbooks for insurrection. The "improvised munitions handbook" comes to mind.
- olympus 13y 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.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    > 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. The "clear and present danger" thing has not been true for many decades now. The current standard is if the speaker intends to cause imminent lawless behaviour. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action Of course the case where the "fire in a movie theater" thing first came up was about a war protester telling people that the draft was unconstitutional...
    - olympus 13y ago
      Thanks for filling me in, jlgreco. However, I still don't think any part of ITAR or AECA is going down because of this.
angersock 13y 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.
- jlgreco 13y 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.
  - angersock 13y ago
    I'm not going to lie--if they did, that would be really cool.
- malandrew 13y 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.
  - mgarfias 13y ago
    Not an expert here, but I believe it's the bit of a nuclear warhead that squashes the plutonium pit and causes it to go critical.
hawleyal 13y ago
TIL the internet constitutes import/export from country to country.
tlrobinson 13y 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?
btilly 13y 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_ 13y 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?
  - btilly 13y ago
    That is really the case. Under international law, all "dual citizen" means is that there are two countries whose national laws consider you a citizen. The USA used to have laws against retaining your citizenship if you took out another one, but they kept losing in the Supreme Court, so stopped trying to enforce them in 1990. (I took out Canadian citizenship less than 3 months after that policy change.) According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations#Restrictions_on_Retransfer_to_Dual_Nationals_and_Third_Country_Nationals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_R... that makes me a foreign national (despite also being a US citizen) which causes ITAR to apply to me.
maratd 13y 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 13y 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.
  - maratd 13y ago
    > So either I misunderstand your comment, or you're a libertarian nutcase(1) trying to hijack this thread. Nope, you didn't misunderstand. You're just a controlling jackass. See? I can call people names too. Why don't you try using your head and make a cogent argument for restricting an individual's right to create and distribute CAD files, hmm?
- carbocation 13y 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 13y ago
Enforcing a stupid law doesn't make it any less stupid.

by steve19 13y ago

glenra 13y 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 13y ago
My knowledge is quite basic on the subject, but how would this be a first amendment issue?
- hawleyal 13y ago
  How is censorship of speech a violation of freedom of speech? AYFKM
  - tks2103 13y ago
    don't beg the question. there's no need for cursing.
    - hawleyal 13y ago
      That is not what "beg the question" means. Begging the question refers to a form of argument in which the final conclusion was earlier presented as a given. That is, a circular argument. I restated the question, to highlight the absurdity of it. That is not begging the question.
      - tks2103 13y ago
        restating the thread: steve19: 'legally you cannot export blueprints about weapons without an export license' glenra: 'how did this manage to survive first amendment challenges?' nness: 'how would this be a first amendment issue?' in nness's comment, i am assuming 'this' is 'exporting blueprints about weapons without an export license' in other words: 'how would exporting blueprints about weapons without an export license be a first amendment issue?' you restated this as: 'how is censorship of speech a violation of freedom of speech?' first amendment issue very easily transforms to freedom of speech, but 'exporting blueprints about weapons' does not easily transform to 'censorship of speech' nness question is essentially 'how does exporting weapon blueprints relate to freedom of speech?' it is not an absurd question. you responded by equating 'exporting weapon blueprints' with 'censoring speech' with no argument, presupposing the conclusion from the question. ergo, begging the question.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  Nobody doubts the shutdown is to prevent citizens from seeing the files, not foreigners. Ergo, censorship.
  - hawleyal 13y ago
    It's censorship either way.
- glenra 13y ago
  In most contexts we interpret "speech" quite broadly. Speech is the transmission of information. Blueprints consist of information structured in a particular meticulous way which can be beautiful as well as practical and informative. Novels and paintings also fit that description. A painting could show how a bomb is constructed. A novel could explain how to commit a crime. So I'm surprised public-domain blueprints aren't already considered "speech" as a matter of settled law. In the case of commercial blueprints I suppose I could imagine an argument for considering them "proprietary information", but in this case where the producer wants the information to get out and is not claiming copyright over it...posting a blueprint on the web is like posting a flyer on a telephone pole. It's a speech act. The federal government isn't generally allowed to prohibit speech acts.
fianchetto 13y 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.
- adastra 13y ago
  ITAR, like all US federal regulations codified in the CFR, have the full force and effect of the law. See the first couple paragraphs here for further explanation: http://library.law.unh.edu/AdminLaw http://library.law.unh.edu/AdminLaw How do you know if something is subject to ITAR? The State Department has a big list. It's called the US Munitions List (USML). At the time Zimmerman said that, PGP probably wasn't on the list. But I assure you, blueprints of guns are absolutely on the list.
  - fianchetto 13y ago
    > At the time Zimmerman said that, PGP probably wasn't on the list. It wasn't on the list yet, proving his point about volatility. > full force and effect of the law. All decrees, from Hammurabi onward, have the same qualities.
  - mgarfias 13y ago
    What's really funny is that 2d blueprints of the m16 and others exist and are readily accessible. Also, the army has published in the past various handbooks for insurrection. The "improvised munitions handbook" comes to mind.
olympus 13y 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.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > 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. The "clear and present danger" thing has not been true for many decades now. The current standard is if the speaker intends to cause imminent lawless behaviour. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action Of course the case where the "fire in a movie theater" thing first came up was about a war protester telling people that the draft was unconstitutional...
  - olympus 13y ago
    Thanks for filling me in, jlgreco. However, I still don't think any part of ITAR or AECA is going down because of this.

angersock 13y 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.

jlgreco 13y 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.
- angersock 13y ago
  I'm not going to lie--if they did, that would be really cool.
malandrew 13y 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.
- mgarfias 13y ago
  Not an expert here, but I believe it's the bit of a nuclear warhead that squashes the plutonium pit and causes it to go critical.

hawleyal 13y ago

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

tlrobinson 13y 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?

btilly 13y 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_ 13y 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?
- btilly 13y ago
  That is really the case. Under international law, all "dual citizen" means is that there are two countries whose national laws consider you a citizen. The USA used to have laws against retaining your citizenship if you took out another one, but they kept losing in the Supreme Court, so stopped trying to enforce them in 1990. (I took out Canadian citizenship less than 3 months after that policy change.) According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_Regulations#Restrictions_on_Retransfer_to_Dual_Nationals_and_Third_Country_Nationals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_R... that makes me a foreign national (despite also being a US citizen) which causes ITAR to apply to me.

maratd 13y 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 13y 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.
- maratd 13y ago
  > So either I misunderstand your comment, or you're a libertarian nutcase(1) trying to hijack this thread. Nope, you didn't misunderstand. You're just a controlling jackass. See? I can call people names too. Why don't you try using your head and make a cogent argument for restricting an individual's right to create and distribute CAD files, hmm?
carbocation 13y 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 13y ago

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