Cody Wilson, Who Posted Gun Instructions Online, Sues State Department | Hacker News Reader

Cody Wilson, Who Posted Gun Instructions Online, Sues State Department

nytimes.com

76 pointsjordanbaucke71 comments

> “I can’t think of anything quite analogous,” said Floyd Abrams, a noted First Amendment lawyer. “But on the face of it, it seems to me like a serious claim.”

Really? Sounds almost exactly how in the 90s restrictions were placed on exporting cryptography, by placing strong software crypto on the US Munitions List.

> Mr. Wilson, 27, claims he spent thousands of dollars over the next two years on lawyers who helped him file paperwork in an effort to comply with the regulations, which are known as ITAR.

"International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) The regulations control the export and import of defense-related articles and services on the United States Munitions List (USML)."

So why can't, just like with strong crypto, Mr. Wilson place his drawings behind a web form where you certify that you are within the United States and will not export the drawings?

> So why can't, just like with strong crypto, Mr. Wilson place his drawings behind a web form where you certify that you are within the United States and will not export the drawings?

Having read other articles about Cody he believes that all information should be free, global, and non-censored. Similar to the cypherpunk philosophy. His decision to use potentially dangerous information as an example of this idea had the intended side-effected of drawing out ideological opponents. Such as the media and regulators.

As a result, the public is now forced to seriously question the limits of free flowing of information thanks to the internet/3d printing/decentralize file sharing/etc. As we know from media piracy, attempting to suppress information on the internet usually results in the opposite effect. Which is what happened to Cody's files, tons of people reposted it all over the internet immediately after the regulatory legal threat was issued.

Anyone could check that box saying they're American or use a VPN. Then distribute the file via torrents. Which makes the whole regulatory process seem like a public spectacle rather than an effective deterrent.

The crypto wars from the 1990s is certainly analogous.

Code is a difficult precedent for me, especially given the prior example of PGP having to print source as books to "count".

However, as far as restricting the information itself in this case - I can readily & legally buy gunsmithing books, in a country where it's illegal to possess a firearm without a license. And there's nothing shady about it. We're not talking junk kindlespam either. Real books by real authors, by real publishers in real bookshops.

If that information is considered free in a country that has some of the toughest gun laws (UK), it seems bizarre to me that it should be more restricted / less free in the US.

I look forward to buying his books of printed G Code [1] which would build a gun from scratch when OCR'd or typed back in.

This reminds me, I still have the PGP source book on my bookshelf.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-code

Where did you see any plans of his to publish g-code in hard-copy?

I didn't, but I'm assume he's familiar with the PGP debacle (and if he's not, I just emailed him).

Yeeeeeah, I said that 2 years ago, and I wasn't the only one. NYT should have talked to a few more sources.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/15/the-constitution-and-the-3d...

Wired's article on this is much better.

http://www.wired.com/2015/05/3-d-printed-gun-lawsuit-starts-...

They should definitely have talked about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States and the PGP case. ITAR was the regulation used then too.

> So why can't, just like with strong crypto, Mr. Wilson place his drawings behind a web form where you certify that you are within the United States and will not export the drawings?

He's been disadvantaged by being held in legal limbo for two years.

I think this specific suit is valid, but it does raise questions about where the line should be drawn. With just a little creativity, it is very easy to build extremely dangerous weapons from off-the-shelf parts. I won't mention anything specific, as some HN karma is not worth the slightest chance of these weapons being used. I will mention one of my rejected ideas, as there is a straightforward countermeasure: laser blinding devices. Powerful infrared laser diodes are cheap, as are the optics and electronics to drive and focus them. Such lasers are invisible and cause permanent damage faster than one can blink. They have a range measured in kilometers, and they are small enough to be mounted on consumer drones. Combine this with face recognition/tracking, and you could permanently blind any target who dared to show themselves in public.

Do you think someone who published the specifics (parts list, blueprints, source code, etc) of such a device should be punished? I do, even though I think there's an obvious countermeasure. Likewise, while Wilson's 3D-printed gun is a toy, not everything publishable is so benign. Before we hop on the train of free-speech idealism, we should realize how fortunate we are that nobody has discovered a convenient world-ending weapon. Considering the amount of energy pent-up in ordinary matter, we've been incredibly lucky. SILEX[1] came close, but thankfully its specifics have been kept secret. And had physics turned out slightly differently, building a nuclear weapon could have been as easy as putting sand in a microwave.[2]

As much as I hate to admit it, there is such a thing as dangerous information. Until humanity becomes wiser, I think our only (terrible) option is to silence people who try to spread it. Again, this specific case clearly falls under free speech, but it's important to keep future discoveries in mind.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_isotopes_by_lase...

2. This example was originally used by Nick Bostrom.

>I think this specific suit is valid, but it does raise questions about where the line should be drawn.

I vote no line. I grew up on a small farm. I was near large farms. There are some very dangerous chemicals that have been used in terrorist attacks that are in large supply on almost any farm. Freedom of speech and freedom of information is greater than any safety, especially since with the darknet and the ability to do basic research such safety is minimal at best.

>As much as I hate to admit it, there is such a thing as dangerous information.

Partial censorship in the government's favor has been vastly more dangerous than information in the hands of the masses. Thus I rather have the info without the censorship.

To quote someone who actually put his money where his mought was...

>The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

Thinking about issues in completely binary terms is not taken seriously by policymakers who balance a host of competing concerns.

> As much as I hate to admit it, there is such a thing as dangerous information

I do agree with you on that but the problem, as always, is who decides what's dangerous information? What if I published the blueprint of a blinding drone with the genuine intention of it being used against pests? Eventually you end up with some bureaucrat ruining some kid's life just so he can climb a bit up on the hierarchy ladder. And then there the issue of cost effectiveness. Should we really waste resources on silencing people when it's so easy to publish information anonymously?

The first line would be the government. This is what is expected in this sort of case. The defendant could then appeal, and eventually it would reach the Supreme Court, who would then decide.

This is the general process for appealing all laws thought to be unconstitutional in the US, for better or worse. Challenging it is unlikely to curry favour from any party.

When you're threatened with jail time and million dollar fines, your first thought isn't "yeah, screw it, I'll appeal". Most rational people will just play it safe and comply. Knowing that, authorities can use it to suppress anything inconvenient that comes close to some broad definition of "dangerous" information.

I'm quite certain I'm well into the 1%, and I've looked at taking people to court several times when they've screwed me over in some way. Not once have I ever looked at the process and thought, "I can afford this!", so I choose to pay to deal with their actions myself and move on with my life. The legal system is broken.

Well Blinding weapons are banned by the Geneva convention use would be considered a war crime.

That's actually true (I wasn't aware of it), turns out there's even a wikipedia article about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Weap...

While true, how would that begin to cover domestic use outside of warfare? I didn't even think the current discussion was even covering warfare.

Causing injury to another person is generally already illegal.

The question isn't about causing injury. It is about possessing a device (or even knowledge) capable of harming someone.

Because there are non criminal ways to go about killing people in war.. think about that a bit.

Yet putting a missile into their vehicle, even when there is a chance their children are with them, isn't (and even if it is on paper, a law that isn't enforced might as well not exist).

No suffering involved... Because killing is okay as long as you don't make your victim suffer.

I honestly can't tell if you are being sarcastic because there are enough people who hold a similar view to this, at least in certain cases.

I said it tongue in cheek because I don't believe any form of killing is okay, except maybe as punishment for murder.

The logic used to prohibit things like chemical warfare during war is just that: to limit suffering.

But where does your line get drawn and who gets to decide what "too dangerous" is? This is just ripe for abuse. There are many ideas that are considered a threat to the current regime of a country and in many cases there is the suppression of those ideas that threaten the status quo.

Also, I think it may be a mistake for you to think that you are the first and only person to have come up with most of your "dangerous" ideas. Open conversations about potential threat vectors is a much better proposition than trying to sweep it all under a rug, hoping some "bad actor" never arrives at that same idea.

You may be interested in a post I wrote on this subject a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8916033

Summary: The question isn't if the knowledge about dangerous weapons will leak, but when that leak will happen. The as technology keeps getting better and better, it is only a matter of time before those technologies are cheap/simple enough to become something that can be found in a "garage workshop".

Trying to resist the spread of knowledge merely slows the rate of diffusion at best - it can have the opposite effect - so this is not a long-term solution. I suggest that we need to start fixing the underlying problems (poverty, tribal feuding, etc.) that create the motive for using dangerous weapons, or we are going to get a nasty surprise someday.

There's a selection effect at work. It seems as if everything leaks because you don't hear about the stuff that doesn't leak. Plenty of things have been kept secret for decades: differential cryptanalysis, Ultra, FOGBANK. Those are just some of the ones we know about. It's quite likely there are more we don't.

Yes, they were kept secret for decades and yet you know about them now. It's not always a question of how long can information that is considered potentially dangerous can be kept secret. Sometimes it's a question of can it be kept secret indefinitely if the information is deemed dangerous enough. Many would say no.

> I won't mention anything specific, as some HN karma is not worth the slightest chance of these weapons being used.

Thank you. I have seen far, far too many people - including myself, at times - instinctively choosing to be clever in conversation rather than using appropriate discretion.

Just think of all the terrorist attacks that were caused by HN information not already on Youtube or PirateBay or I2P.

Calling people's attention to dangerous ideas is a risky thing to do, regardless of whether the information was technically available or not. Often the risks are small compared to the benefits of bringing the ideas into a discussion. But sometimes they're not small enough, and the responsible thing to do is to think before posting about whether you're creating the wrong kind of inspiration. You don't know what sort of crazy person might end up reading it.

That's far less dangerous than you might think. True, people are far more likely to look ar a drone than a random object, but targeting a 2mm wide target from a drone is a hard problem. Especially when you consider how dangerous fairly small drones can be. IMO, as long as your taking about something less dangerous than a car surpassing information seems excessive.

The book The Trigger by Arthur C. Clarke and Michael P. Kube-McDowell covers that very idea, dealing with dangerous information that will eventually become public knowledge. It's not a main plot point for the book, but it is discussed by several of the characters.

What was the obvious countermeasure?

IR-blocking glasses or contact lenses. If the adversary used lasers in the visual range, the beam (and source) would be clearly visible. Still, you could counter that with photochromics or active defenses similar to auto-darkening welding masks.

Reflective sunglasses, maybe

it seems to be well established practice in the US that ITAR takes precedence over the 1st in the well defined by ITAR cases - for example, due to ITAR, Elon Musk just can't exercise his 1st by publishing Merlin's blueprints. The same is here - if plastic handgun falls under ITAR - qua. If not - qua for the State Department. It seems that instead of the 1st Amendment lawyer, here ITAR specialist lawyer would be more useful.

Of course, if it is a clear ITAR item, then the fight for the priority of the 1st Amendment is a noble, yet most probably destined to fail, endeavor.

Just as some additional information, being prosecuted for publishing the blueprints to a very dangerous weapon is a textbook (as in, I read it in a textbook) example of where it is generally believed that your right to free speech does not provide a good defence.

Whether Wilson's ideas fall under this is probably arguable, but going on free speech alone is sketchy, to say the least.

Certainly not generally believed by anyone (including lawyers) I know. There's not much to interpret in "...shall make no law..."

The problem, as stated everywhere around this post, is who draws the line, considering the line is against the letter and spirit of the law. The whole reason the clause "...shall make no law..." is there is because any law is self-serving to a group of people wishing to control another group.

While you may consider weapons speech to be over a line you have arbitrarily drawn in the sand, this guy over here believes hate speech is a more dangerous type of speech and would like to draw his own line.

Pretty soon the government considers anti-government speech to be "hate speech" against the powers that be...

"No" law. Not "not many" laws.

The supreme court has numerous times affirmed limits to free speech. For example, the espionage act has been ruled constitutional. Military officers are prohibited from releasing classified information. You're in trouble if you call in a bomb threat.

You segue onto hate speech and drawing lines; this seems irrelevant here.

Were a Lockheed Martin worker to send the plans for the F-35 to China, they'd be put in prison.

Were Intel transmit the designs for that supercomputer that Intel weren't allowed to build in China to get around export regs, they'd be put in prison.

If it were the case that the constitution allowed the government to (say) prohibit the exporting of certain military hardware (say, a nuclear bomb), but not prohibiting the export of an incredibly detailed document explaining every nuance, datum, etc of producing that same piece of military hardware, I'd argue that the constitution needed a brief update (perhaps as you mention to 'shall make not many laws'). To my knowledge, it does not.

Then either this case will lead to failure, or success by arguing that any export regs on ideas are unconstitutional (thus leading to the bizarre problem above) or a success by proving that the export regs do not, or should not cover what he has produced.

Were Intel transmit the designs for that supercomputer that Intel weren't allowed to build in China to get around export regs, they'd be put in prison.

If Intel were to publish detailed instructions for building this computer in a book, there's no question that it would be protected by the first amendment.

what if they were to not do that, and instead just email them privately (as hypothesised)?

> Were a Lockheed Martin worker to send the plans for the F-35 to China, they'd be put in prison.

Not for speech. Let's say that employee worked on those documents, and was presumed to have knowledge that would enable her to recreate similar plans.

Now suppose they defect to China. They could lose their clearance and, I suppose, be prosecuted for misreporting travel plans and foreign contacts.

But what prior restraint can legally be placed on this person?

So if Edward Snowden were to come back to the US, he'd be prosecuted for misreporting travel plans and foreign contacts but no more? Seems suspect.

More than likely he'd be prosecuted for computer crimes, not violations of speech limitations.

He'd be prosecuted under the espionage act[0] per the charges against him. The espionage act limits speech.

[0]-http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/22/snowden...

This thread is about consequences when the a priori restraint to free speech is not in existence. Please don't derail.

The supreme court has numerous times affirmed limits to free speech.

My assertion is that this is an affront to the Constitution. I thought I made that clear, but if not, SCOTUS ruling that a law abridging the freedom of speech is Constitutional is blatantly and obviously wrong, until an amendment is passed changing the 1st, which is why we have an amendment process.

Do you support a citizen's right to yell "fire!" in a crowded building or theater?

Yes.

To be clear, the law against "fire in a movie theater" hold criminal information that is blatantly 1) dangerous and, more importantly 2) known to be false.

Very specifically this SCOTUS opinion leaves alone speech that is 1) dangerous and 2) opinion or fact and not know to be false. So yelling "fire!" In a theater actually on fire - even though that information can be dangerous (set off a panic) is not illegal.

I'm not necessarily against holding someone accountable for the results of their speech (conversations about personal responsibility aside) but then it's not the speech that's illegal.

>I'm not necessarily against holding someone accountable for the results of their speech (conversations about personal responsibility aside) but then it's not the speech that's illegal.

aptly explained, and food for thought. My appreciations.

You're missing the other part: "abridging the freedom of speech." Why use a noun phrase here? To draw in existing concepts of what the "freedom of speech" means.

Note that your interpretation cuts two ways. If the framers were not referring to some pre existing legal concept, and instead just meant literal speech, then a lot of the decisions expanding that concept are invalid too. Publishing a book, for example, has been interpreted as part of the "freedom of speech." But that's a legal fiction--publishing is an action, not speech. So is protesting, or uploading things to the Internet.

I agree with your assertion that many things given "speech" protections aren't, like campaign spending, etc. I don't believe protesting to be, though, because it's a medium through which actual speech is communicated. So too is any published forum where actual words are used, like say books or the internet.

Campaign finance, however, is not. I fully support someone's right to speak about who they support and why, in a medium where that speech is communicated as actual language. That is the line, as far as I'm concerned.

Protest, books, the internet - they're all transfer mediums FOR speech. I don't see much difference between limiting publishing and limiting speaking out loud, which are both word-transfer-mechanisms.

I was going to respond to this, but then I realized I'm not sure how your post relates to the parent. Plus I'm not sure about the last part, are you really saying that print as free speech is a legal fiction?

He's saying that the literal text of the first amendment doesn't allow for the interpretative process of figuring out whether dangerous speech is protected. I'm saying that 1) the way it's written clearly allows for interpretation; and 2) if it didn't that would cut out a lot of protections where the court has interpreted "speech" to be broader than its literal meaning.

Speech as encompassing a range of non-speech activities is indeed the result of legal interpretation. If you're a researcher in computer speech recognition, your job has nothing to do with print, right? The concept of "the freedom of speech" encompassing a wide range of expressive conduct is the result of a legal process, one that started before the Constitution was written. When the framers wrote the text against that background, they meant to incorporate the existing understanding of the limits of that freedom. And that concept has always allowed for limitations on harmful expression.

Generally believed by whom?

The classic case on this topic is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Progressive,_I.... And nobody knows what the court would have ruled because once the blueprints for the hydrogen bomb were reprinted widely, the government decided that there was no point in continuing the case.

Like the weaspon of cryptography?

This is being used for a standard gun. A very dangerous weapon would be something like a dirty bomb or nuke.

But even then I disagree. Censorship is despicable and will be abused. Historically it has been far more abused than any other dangerous weapon and should thus be the first eliminated.

So if some serial killer type were to discover an easy way to make a nerve gas from products bought solely from Wal-Mart, you'd rather that they have the right to widely publish the recipe than it be repressed due to the entirely reasonable fear of many deaths due to the discovery?

This does not occur in a legal vacuum; for example Hit Man: A technical manual for independent contractors is an incredibly detailed description on how to commit a murder, hide the body etc, and was found to be used as a manual in a triple murder. It was found to not be protected under the first amendment (although it never reached the supreme court). There was a genuine concern that this book carried a risk of consequences and had already inspired a multiple murder.

It raised clear issues which were never settled conclusively.

Censorship is easily abused, but it would be a strange person who would campaign for free speech without limit. The argument that is usually made is that of a slippery slope; we've been going down that slope for hundreds of years and still have no Ministry of Love or thoughtcrime.

>So if some serial killer type were to discover an easy way to make a nerve gas from products bought solely from Wal-Mart, you'd rather that they have the right to widely publish the recipe than it be repressed due to the entirely reasonable fear of many deaths due to the discovery?

The serial killer already has it. Allowing them to publish it is our best bet to catch them before they do anything else.

Would you suggest limiting knowledge of chemistry as a classified need-to-know secret so that serial killers won't make nerve gas?

>This does not occur in a legal vacuum; for example Hit Man: A technical manual for independent contractors is an incredibly detailed description on how to commit a murder, hide the body etc, and was found to be used as a manual in a triple murder. It was found to not be protected under the first amendment (although it never reached the supreme court). There was a genuine concern that this book carried a risk of consequences and had already inspired a multiple murder.

And I believe that such a rulling is, quite frankly, BS. Because even if it consolidates all the info, all the info on how to dispose of bodies already exists online.

>Censorship is easily abused, but it would be a strange person who would campaign for free speech without limit.

Hello. My name is Strange Person. How are you doing today?

Then your definition of free speech is different from that of most people. For example, under your definition it would be legal to falsely testify in court. It would be legal to publish child pornography.

>For example, under your definition it would be legal to falsely testify in court.

The validity of eyewitness testimony is vastly overstated and having it all be treated as if those giving it were lying would be an improvement because they are often not telling the truth because their memories are imperfect, though they do believe themselves to be telling the truth.

>It would be legal to publish child pornography.

Those who produce it would still be hunted down with extreme prejudice and any potential market would be immediately priced out by legally produced computer generated images. If anything, it would better allow us to hunt down the producers, increasing the number of children rescued. It would also stop the courts from ruining the lives of children who sext. Not perfect, but I wouldn't be so quick to assume the costs are greater than the benefits.

> The validity of eyewitness testimony is vastly overstated and having it all be treated as if those giving it were lying would be an improvement because they are often not telling the truth because their memories are imperfect, though they do believe themselves to be telling the truth.

Fine. How would you deal with the forensics people deliberately presenting DNA evidence that never existed? How about the police officer who testifies that they found the fingerprints of the accused at the scene of the crime? How about the totally forged chain of custody for evidence? What about the bit where the police stitched the interrogation tape together so that the accused has a recorded confession?

Suddenly you turn a mostly reliable court procedure into one where literally nothing said by anyone can be trusted. Sure, eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, but there's no need to turn it into a kangaroo court.

I don't think you can make the second claim without some kind of evidence at all.

>Fine. How would you deal with the forensics people deliberately presenting DNA evidence that never existed?

Heard about the FBI and their recent DNA scandal. Our current system isn't preventing the problem already. Police already are known for falsifying evidence.

As for a legal basis, you still have the ability to sign away your rights (well some of them at least), which is how an NDA would still be legal. You can choose to enter into such a contract with the government, but with the key difference being one of choice. You don't choose it, then you don't get to be a police officer, judge, etc.

>Suddenly you turn a mostly reliable court procedure into one where literally nothing said by anyone can be trusted. Sure, eyewitness testimony can be unreliable, but there's no need to turn it into a kangaroo court.

It already is for the majority of the players too poor to pay to win.

Repressive governments killed more people during the 20th century than all of the serial killers in history. We have far more to fear from governments than from individual psychopaths.

This does not occur in a legal vacuum; for example Hit Man: A technical manual for independent contractors is an incredibly detailed description on how to commit a murder, hide the body etc, and was found to be used as a manual in a triple murder. It was found to not be protected under the first amendment (although it never reached the supreme court).

First, there was no such finding about the book. Just because the first judge to hear a motion to dismiss on first amendment grounds refuses to grant it doesn't mean that the book was found to not be protected. The case was settled by Paladin Press's insurance company.

Second, the fact that the aforementioned murderer was caught, convicted and died in prison illustrates the fallacious nature of the arguments about the books lethality. I have a copy, it's fantasy.

Yes, we do. That does not give us a dichotomy of unconditional free speech vs totalitarian regime.

We're facing the threat of such a regime right now.

Cody Wilson was threatened with incarceration for sharing information that he obtained legally and belonged to him.

He's not selling trade secrets. He's not releasing classified government files. He was allowing people to download design documents that he created and for which he owned the IP. He was providing information for people to do something that was completely legal in the jurisdiction in which he was located.

It isn't a dichotomy, but it is like a person trying to support their weight on the floor. The straighter they stand, the long they can keep the position. Have them lean far enough over and it is near inevitable that they will eventually crash to the ground. If you have them plank a few inches off the ground, you could probably hold your breath longer than it takes for them to hit the ground.

(I think I need a better analogy here, but it'll take me some time to come up with one.)

Did you read about prior restraint in a textbook, too?

In what country? In the United States, this is not a textbook definition.

Those would be obscenity, "fighting words", and incitement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com