Hacker News Reader

Comment by zaroth | Hacker News Reader

> “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?

View on HN

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com