[23027] in Privacy_Forum
[ PRIVACY Forum ] Script of my national radio report yesterday on
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lauren Weinstein)
Tue Jan 27 11:22:56 2026
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 08:07:22 -0800
From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>
To: privacy-dist@vortex.com
Message-ID: <20260127160722.GA24186@vortex.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: privacy-bounces+privacy-forum=mit.edu@vortex.com
This is the script of my national radio report yesterday on attempts
to mandate government "gun blocking technology" in 3D printers and CNC
equipment, etc. As always there may have been minor wording variations
from this script as I presented my report live on air.
- - -
Well, the brief answer is that the implications are quite disturbing,
but to know why we have to back up a bit. Now I'm not addressing here
the broader controversies regarding firearms, my purpose here is to
highlight technological realities.
And these realities are that these types of legislative efforts -- and
this isn't the first time these sorts of proposals have been discussed
around the country -- are doomed not only to fail at their ostensible
purposes but can do enormous collateral damage in the process.
Specifically we're talking about proposed legislation in Washington
State that would attempt to ban use of 3D printers or CNC machines
from being used to create guns or gun parts, likely expanding to other
items that would be banned later. They also want to somehow require
"blocking systems" to technologically prevent these devices from being
able to create such items.
Ostensibly all of this is to push back against the creation of
so-called untraceable "ghost guns". 3D printers you're probably at
least somewhat familiar with. Over the last few years these have
evolved from finicky devices requiring quite a bit of expertise to
use, into more of consumer products that still need considerable
knowledge to use at their best, but that generally are much simpler
for non-experts to use. 3D printers work with plastic. Less familiar
especially to hobbyists are CNC equipment, that's Computer Numerical
Control -- that can also work with plastic but more commonly are used
to fashion metal or wood.
Here's a key reality: These machines themselves don't know what
they're creating, other than some that display the shape of the
objects. These objects can vary enormously and can be in virtually
infinite numbers of specific forms, and could typically be used for
all sorts of assemblies having nothing to do with guns. 3D printers
and CNC equipment are literally robots following a long list of
specific instructions -- move this far in X direction, this far in Y,
this distance in Z. Extrude this much plastic. And so on. They
generally don't even need Internet connections. They can follow a long
list of these precise instructions in what's called g-code (which
stands for "geometric code"), even if presented on a simple microsd
card. And by the way, g-code was invented in the 1950s at MIT! It's
been augmented over the years of course.
What creates the g-code? In the case of 3D printers, typically g-code
comes from software generically referred to as slicers. CNC gear uses
similar software to generate their g-code. Slicers input the data from
CAD -- computer aided design -- files often as what are called STL
files, and processes these to create the specific lists of g-code
instructions.
While there are some versions of all this that are proprietary,
crucially all of these various elements in this engineering pipeline
can be implemented using easily available parts and open source
software. So it becomes obvious why so-called "blocking" technologies
would be impractical at scale against anyone with the desire to ignore
them. Guns can be created using parts from a hardware store -- 3D
printers or CNC machines aren't necessary. Remember, the equipment
itself doesn't know if it's creating a component for a gun or a
similar looking object for a harmless school engineering assignment
having nothing to do with firearms. Should screwdrivers be banned
because they can be used to create weapons? Of course not.
I could go on but frankly the concept of requiring "blocking"
technology in 3D printers and CNC machines isn't even a close call in
terms of technological reality. It wouldn't accomplish its stated
purpose, but it could cause enormous problems in a vast array of ways
since these tools are used by factories, businesses, educators,
farmers, hobbyists, and many others who are doing nothing related to
firearms at all but would find their work constantly hobbled by such
government edicts and attempts to implement them. The blocking concept
for 3D printers and CNC equipment is somewhat akin to wishful
thinking. It's not practical, and it should absolutely be rejected.
- - -
L
- - -
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com (https://www.vortex.com/lauren)
Lauren's Blog: https://lauren.vortex.com
Mastodon: https://mastodon.laurenweinstein.org/@lauren
Signal: By request on need to know basis
Founder: Network Neutrality Squad: https://www.nnsquad.org
PRIVACY Forum: https://www.vortex.com/privacy-info
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
https://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy
