Comment by angersock | Hacker News Reader

Comment by angersock | Hacker News Reader

Let me point out some interesting issues that are related to this, just so that we can have something beyond the normal gun/anti-gun rhetoric:

1. If we legislate 3D printing to prevent weapon manufacture, we run directly counter to the idea of "Print anything you need at home!". How do we reconcile these two ideas?

2. If we want to fingerprint, say, a lower receiver and identify which machine made it, how would we do so? (My hunch would be looking for misalignments in the fill pattern, but that's just a first guess).

3. What sort of technology would be required to automatically detect the production of a weapon? Could we identify a pressure container, for example, for use in holding a shotgun shell for firing? Could we distinguish that from something else?

4. Taking (3) a step further--this technology could obviously also have applications in preventing patent infringement. Is it desirable to require that 3D printers can recognize infringing mechanisms? Why or why not?

> If we legislate 3D printing to prevent weapon manufacture, we run directly counter to the idea of "Print anything you need at home!".

It's not necessary to refer specifically to the means of manufacture. Homemade weapons are already regulated. The legal risk you run by illegal possession is separate from how you obtained it.

> Is it desirable to require that 3D printers can recognize infringing mechanisms?

Again, a simpler question would be: "Is it necessary?" And the answer, of course, is no.

Seriously, this article is talking about completely hypothetical problems. There is plenty of time to legislate on 3d printing if and when it becomes a serious problem in and of itself.

I think the realization of it is likely to be much simpler: I expect widespread 3d printing (if it ever really becomes a common in-the-home thing, as opposed to stores printing stuff on demand) to be a curated, extremely simple experience, along the app store model.

Though I'm not sure that the economics/frequency of use would make it make sense to have one in every home, at all. Being able to get whatever replacement part or tool I might need fabricated on demand at Home Depot would be extremely cool to me; having to purchase all the equipment and consumables to do it in my own home appeals much less.

So I don't know that it would really derail a policy designed to greatly reduce the frequency of mass shooting events by making gun acquisition much more difficult. (Focusing strictly on the feasibility of that, and leaving aside for now any questions of whether private citizens need to have the right to have guns for other purposes.)

I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether there's a 3D printer in every home or not, because there will always be a non-negligible number of people who find the ability to rapidly prototype objects on demand in their homes appealing. You wouldn't argue that the law can ignore the fact that many people have general purpose computers just because most people use iPhones, right?

wrt to your first point: in the article, they say:

"Will 3D printers refuse to print parts, the way 2D ones are supposed to refuse to print bills? "

That's an interesting analogy, although the outcomes are not the same (and I doubt any 2D printer would be capable of duplicating a banknote anyway).

(That being said, I can't find any references to ink printers being unable to print bills- if anyone has additional info, that'd be very much appreciated!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation

AFAIK, it's copiers, not printers. Color copiers in particular will fail with an obscure error code if you try to copy money. If you call that code in, your visitor won't be the technician...

(I used to make drivers for high end color copiers back when)

I honestly don't see the problem with (1), this is already the case when it comes to paper printers and what you are allowed to produce with with your hammer and anvil anyway. I'd actually be surprised if there aren't plenty of countries having legislation in-place that will cover exactly this, whether you use a 3D-printer or not is simply not an issue.

How do we reconcile these two ideas?

I don't see a problem with balancing rights. After all, you can do anything you want in the privacy of your own home. However you can't beat & rape your kids. No-one suggests that this is a massive problem and infringment on rights.

I see (1) as being the only feasible scenario. The problem you identify is only an issue for purists -- most people will be fine with "print anything you want, within reasonable limits."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com