Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DoD Descends On DEFCAD

timothy posted about a year ago | from the where-there's-a-whip-there's-a-way dept.

United States 496

First time accepted submitter He Who Has No Name writes "While the ATF appears to have no open objection to 3D printed firearms at this time, the Department of Defense apparently does. A short while ago, '#DEFCAD has gone dark at the request of the Department of Defense Trade Controls. Take it up with the Secretary of State' appeared on the group's site, and download links for files hosted there began to give users popups warning of the DoD takeover." Well, that didn't take long. Note: As of this writing, the site is returning an error, rather than the message above, but founder Cody Wilson has posted a similar message to twitter. At least the Commander in Chief is in town to deliver the message personally. Update: 05/09 21:17 GMT by T : Tweet aside, that should be Department of State, rather than Department of Defense, as many readers have pointed out. (Thanks!)

cancel ×

496 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well there ya go (5, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#43678983)

Glad to see that the first amendment is so inviolable...

Re:Well there ya go (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679081)

First amendment only applies to our corporate overlords.

Re:Well there ya go (3, Informative)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#43679195)

Press is free for those as own one.

Re:Well there ya go (3, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year ago | (#43679099)

Well, the first amendment speaks about the right to bear arms, not about the right to make arms.

Re:Well there ya go (-1, Redundant)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43679129)

Are you really this ignorant of the constitution or was that supposed to be a stupid joke?

Re:Well there ya go (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679503)

harrar, you're such a faget.

Re:Well there ya go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679135)

That would be the 2nd, not 1st.

Re:Well there ya go (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679147)

Much like the second amendment protecting you from unreasonable search and seisure and giving women the right to vote.

Pretty sure... (3, Funny)

fyngyrz (762201) | about a year ago | (#43679267)

...most of congress, along with scotus, suffers from reasonable seizures. It's from the bill of blights, supported by executive disorder.

Re:Well there ya go (1)

Darth Snowshoe (1434515) | about a year ago | (#43679181)

Just thinking out loud here - maybe you are meaning the second amendment?

Re:Well there ya go (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679191)

In the debates over abortion, one of the points supporters made was that denial of access to the means of exercising a right was indistinguishable from denying the right itself.

Uh, no. (5, Informative)

neoshroom (324937) | about a year ago | (#43679247)

Uh, no, it doesn't. The first amendment is the right to free speech. The second amendment is the right to bear arms.

What you are missing here is that these files this guy is sharing are essentially just descriptions of shapes and therefore typically would be considered speech. The files then let you make arms (though really poor quality ones). He is sharing information though, not arms, which is why this has been transmuted from a second amendment issue to a first amendment one.

I'm still wondering though due to that Tao of Math line if I've been expertly trolled or not.

Re:Well there ya go (5, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | about a year ago | (#43679375)

1st amendment + 2 amendment = right to print arms

Re:Well there ya go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679459)

hah, great!

Re:Well there ya go (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679187)

Come on. This is not about the First Amendment. What they were doing was a brazen violation of ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) which explicitly prohibit the sharing by US individuals/entities of technical data pertaining to defense articles (i.e. those items that appear on the US Munitions List) with foreign entities. Posting on an open website certainly qualifies. To share any such data with a foreign entity requires a license from the State Department.

http://pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/documents/official_itar/2012/ITAR_Part_121.pdf

Re:Well there ya go (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43679201)

This is a zip gun not some wonder weapon. How the hell is this a defense article?

Re:Well there ya go (4, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#43679379)

Sadly, it's a defense article because the DoD fucking said so.

Re:Well there ya go (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679477)

Anything on the US Munitions List is considered a defense article. These are enumerated in the PDF I referenced and the definitions are quite broad. To wit, the first two items in Category I

* (a) Nonautomatic and semi-automatic
firearms to caliber .50 inclusive (12.7 mm).
* (b) Fully automatic firearms to .50 caliber
inclusive (12.7 mm).

Re:Well there ya go (2)

jythie (914043) | about a year ago | (#43679295)

I would say 'possible violation' rather then brazen. It would have been nice if they reviewed the files and said 'nope, this is covered under existing exemptions', but the fact that they are reviewing it does not mean the author is in 'brazen' violation.

Re:Well there ya go (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year ago | (#43679359)

Its probably an arms export violation. Much like PGP was.

Shock news: first Amendment has limits too (1, Interesting)

golodh (893453) | about a year ago | (#43679403)

It never ceases to amaze me how people are able to seize on the Amendments to justify their own short-sighted, stupid, destructive, extremist and anarchist hankerings.

Of course there are limits to how far you can push your first-amendment rights; there have to be. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org] and scroll down to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who formulated the clear and present danger test for free speech cases.

How about all those would-be terrorists who can now print their very own pistols that will fail to show up on airport scanners if they (unaccountably) fail to put a big steel x-ray reflector inside the gun? How's that for 'clear and present danger? Feel good about sticking it to 'the man' and spreading 100,000 copies of those gun CAD files, do you? Irresponsible is the least one can say about it.

This is the reason neither Joe Sixpack or 'the man in the street' was put in charge or national security or determining whether this or that speech is protected by the first Amendment or not.

The only real problem is that it's too late now. The horse has already bolted, and every man jack on the planet can shortly print his own plastic gun ... and use that to highjack an airliner or something ... which is what a lot of them seem to want.

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too (3)

He Who Has No Name (768306) | about a year ago | (#43679521)

You know... bullets DO trip metal detectors and show up on X-rays.

Unless you're planning on beating somebody to death with your plastic gun, it's going to be detected.

Next Up! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43678989)

Sex toys manufacturers try to block 3D models of dildos.

The horse has left the barn... (5, Insightful)

bfmorgan (839462) | about a year ago | (#43679011)

These files have been available for a day and have propagated to many other sites. So much for control.

Re:The horse has left the barn... (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43679031)

Yup, the internet as usual will treat censorship as damage and route around it.

Not that I would ever use those plans, I prefer my guns to be a heck of a lot more safe to operate.

Re:The horse has left the barn... (3, Interesting)

He Who Has No Name (768306) | about a year ago | (#43679119)

You know, you can always use printed parts to cast molds and pour aluminum parts from them (or even steel if you're brave).

You could also bootstrap yourself a David Gingery lathe and turn a barrel from scrap steel if you wanted.

Just saying.

Re:The horse has left the barn... (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43679155)

I could, or I could just buy parts or a lathe like a normal person.

Re:The horse has left the barn... (2)

He Who Has No Name (768306) | about a year ago | (#43679261)

You spoil all our fun.

Re:The horse has left the barn... (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | about a year ago | (#43679205)

You know, you can always use printed parts to cast molds and pour aluminum parts from them (or even steel if you're brave).

You could also bootstrap yourself a David Gingery lathe and turn a barrel from scrap steel if you wanted.

Just saying.

3d printing is a tad more complicated; the printed objects aren't solid, they can have intricate internal structures. To do it all from molds you basically need to machine every internal piece anyway, which would be easier if you didn't even bother to start with a 3d printed version in the first place (just start with designs for actual guns).

Re:The horse has left the barn... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43679233)

He suggesting printing the parts then using those for lost cast metal casting.

Re:The horse has left the barn... (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year ago | (#43679417)

Note to self: experiment with a wax 3d printer 3d printer.

Re:The horse has left the barn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679389)

I am totally flabbergasted that you took that the way you did. I've never seen anything like that before. Not even here.

And I'm really not trying to be insulting but I really am floored that anyone took that so out of context.

That's not at all the point (4, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | about a year ago | (#43679337)

The point isn't that DOD thinks the files are going to disappear, and it doesn't matter anyway since the purpose isn't to "disarm Americans" or "keep the files out of the hands of Americans" or some other utter garbage.

There are treaties and various arms control export restrictions (ITAR) at stake, and US-based corporations or entities cannot provide arms in violation of these constructs. If this sort of thing is on the Pirate Bay or elsewhere, DOD trade control doesn't care.

Its really not about the files (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679515)

Its about preventing the next guy from ever appearing out of fear.

He's a witch...er...terrorist, waterboard him! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679013)

And he was never seen again.

Problem Solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679027)

Looks like this whole homemade gun thing is pretty much gone forever, since, as we all know, 3D printing is the only possible way to create a homemade gun.

Kinda saw this coming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679049)

I think the problem is that he came off as trying to align himself with anarchists and Kim Dotcom, people our corporate overlords don't much appreciate. At least he left Manning and Assange out of it.

Prepare to be fucked by the long dick of the law.

Chris Rock was right (1, Funny)

schwep (173358) | about a year ago | (#43679053)

We should control bullets and not guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZrFVtmRXrw

Re:Chris Rock was right (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43679091)

That would be pretty much impossible.
Bullets are easy to make. You could try to control gun powder or primers though.

I doubt either of those would work though.

Re:Chris Rock was right (1)

He Who Has No Name (768306) | about a year ago | (#43679185)

Primers and powder aren't too hard to make either.

Re:Chris Rock was right (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43679257)

Not really, but slightly more challenging than casting wheel weights into bullets.

Re:Chris Rock was right (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year ago | (#43679525)

"Not really, but slightly more challenging than casting wheel weights into bullets."

In this case, non-detectable by metal detectors, you would use granite projectiles and since these are 1 shots, you could even go with a plastic cartridge or none at all.

If you don't need it to look like a gun, you use some innocent form and half a dozen barrels printed inside.

Re:Chris Rock was right (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year ago | (#43679339)

Primers perhaps not, but high grade smokeless powder is non-trivial, and even shops with experienced people and good safety policies tend to blow up occasionally. A hobbiest could probably throw something together that would work in a gun that was expecting it, but making something that was safe and compatible with guns expecting modern black powder, while not undoable, is not exactly easy.

Re:Chris Rock was right (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43679413)

You don't need high grade smokeless powder.
Old fashioned black powder is fine. You can use it in handguns and many rifle cartridges. Modern guns would tolerate it fine. Many of what we consider modern cartridges were originally black powder. Gas operated semi-autos will be the only real problem. More cleaning would be needed of course, but again not a huge issue. Many modernish rounds are still corrosive, like all the old russian ammo.

Not sure what you mean by modern black powder, all black powder is considered outdated. I guess some might call pyrodex or other similar black powder replacements that. Maybe you meant modern guns powder.

Re:Chris Rock was right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679203)

That would be pretty much impossible.

Tell that to the Republican's (e.g from OK) and other assorted wing-nuts who think that it is already happening by way of federal agencies buying too much ammunition.

Re:Chris Rock was right (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43679243)

They are just nuts.

Hornady CEO or pres the other day came out and said as much. Less than 5% of their output goes to all levels of government. This is panic buying and no manufacturer wants to invest in facilities and tooling that will go unused next year when the panic ends.

Re:Chris Rock was right (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about a year ago | (#43679357)

I haven't been able to buy any .22lr, 9mm p., or .223 rem since the shooting.

Participation at the local USPSA club has dropped.

Gun prices are off tha chain.

Seems to have worked to me.

Re:Chris Rock was right (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43679467)

That is because of the nutters buying it all up.

Production can't go up to meet demand, since this is a demand spike that won't last. That means producers are not going to invest in facilities and equipment that will sit idle very soon.

wtf (4, Interesting)

Aryden (1872756) | about a year ago | (#43679071)

The real question is, when did we give the DoD control over domestic actions? The constitution strictly prohibits the military from acting as a policing force on US soil. So, who the hell gave them the right to take down a domestic website?

Re:wtf (1)

Zerth (26112) | about a year ago | (#43679123)

Disseminating ITAR-controlled information will get you nailed unless you can prove that only US residents can access it. Same thing happened with early web browsers that had strong(for the time) encryption enabled.

Re:wtf (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43679189)

How is this primitive gun ITAR controlled?

Would information about how to make a shotgun from surgical rubber tubing, a nail, gas pipe and caps be ITAR controlled?

Re:wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679289)

How is this primitive gun ITAR controlled?

Would information about how to make a shotgun from surgical rubber tubing, a nail, gas pipe and caps be ITAR controlled?

Yes it would. Next question!

Re:wtf (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679323)

Haven't you noticed that MacGyver isn't on the air anymore?

Re:wtf (2)

He Who Has No Name (768306) | about a year ago | (#43679349)

ITAR is one of the most nebulous, subjective, overbroad laws currently on the books.

You would be livid if you saw the full list of some of the ridiculous things that have been slapped with ITAR restrictions. Things like entertainment software (FS Flight Simulator), kids toys (explorer night vision goggles), and hiking equipment (various complex compasses and navigation aids that were allegedly too close to being useful for aiming mortars and artillery).

Re:wtf (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43679439)

So how do we deal with modern electronics. Could I not make smartphones in the USA or show people how to make them?

They would make fine guidance systems for missiles. At some point technology obsoletes your law, this is one of those times.

Re:wtf (1)

idontgno (624372) | about a year ago | (#43679499)

Things like entertainment software (FS Flight Simulator), kids toys (explorer night vision goggles), and hiking equipment (various complex compasses and navigation aids that were allegedly too close to being useful for aiming mortars and artillery).

Things like non-trivial non-pre-backdoored [wikipedia.org] cryptosystems for personal privacy [wikipedia.org] , until somewhat recently.

If "cyberwar" becomes enough of a thing, expect "hacker tool" software to also get a big fat ITAR stamp. Hilarity and abortive attempts at Federal prosecution [wikipedia.org] will follow.

Re:wtf (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679481)

Because all guns are ITAR controlled (22 CFR 121), and what they were publishing certainly qualifies as technical data (22 CFR 120.10). I'm somewhat surprised they'd do this, since it seemed that they were trying to set up a court test case. I'm actually happy this is happening because it'll probably be a good test case for ITAR v. First Amendment (better than someone designing a cruise missile, since our right to own guns is fairly well established).

Re:wtf (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | about a year ago | (#43679137)

The real question is, when did we give the DoD control over domestic actions? The constitution strictly prohibits the military from acting as a policing force on US soil. So, who the hell gave them the right to take down a domestic website?

It's the State Department's export controls rules that they are afoul of; it's unclear exactly how the DoD is involved, if at all.

Re:wtf (4, Informative)

Darth Snowshoe (1434515) | about a year ago | (#43679139)

ITAR. It's called ITAR.

Re:wtf (1)

countach44 (790998) | about a year ago | (#43679273)

ITAR is from the Dept. of State and according to the article it was the DoS and NOT DoD that acted from the header in the letter sent to DEFCAD: "United States Department of State Bureau of Political-Military Affairs Offense of Defense Trade Controls Compliance"

Re:wtf (3, Informative)

He Who Has No Name (768306) | about a year ago | (#43679151)

It's actually (allegedly) the Department of State. DEFCAD got their bureaucracy wrong. Would be awesome to get the headline corrected.

Re:wtf (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | about a year ago | (#43679385)

It's actually (allegedly) the Department of State. DEFCAD got their bureaucracy wrong. Would be awesome to get the headline corrected.

It was in Wilson's tweet that the "Department of Defense" came up, it's a fitting reminder that the subject of all this attention is a rather bitterly paranoid young man. Smart, no doubt; and driven. But a bit too paranoid for me to think of him as stable.

Re:wtf (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year ago | (#43679175)

I think Timothy is having reading comprehension trouble again. TFA I read [forbes.com] says in the first two words of the bloody *headline* that it was the State Department, not DoD, who demanded the takedown. There's a big difference. The State Department has been in charge of export control regulations for a long time. You can check out the Wikipedia article on ITAR [wikipedia.org] for the history; a quick scan says these regulations have been in place since 1976.

Re:wtf (1)

Aryden (1872756) | about a year ago | (#43679291)

Makes sense, though when I try to view the article, I just get Forbes.com and a grey screen. Can't view the original article for some reason.

Re:wtf (2)

Aguazul2 (2591049) | about a year ago | (#43679199)

They were exporting weapons! Well, kind of -- programs that automatically create weapons when provided with a suitable 3D printer. So that probably comes under military export controls, like cryptography does in some places. I guess with the correct paperwork they could continue distributing these plans.

Re:wtf (1)

flayzernax (1060680) | about a year ago | (#43679271)

They were exporting weapons designs.

I can assume the bureaucrats decided to shut this down now before it developed into a real industry that would compete with the current arms market.

If they let something like this slide. A generous estimate is that 25 years down the road a large syndicate of weapons designers could be operating out of the U.S.

Now I wonder how this applies to youtube videos on how to forge your own steel knives?

Re:wtf (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43679285)

So if I tell you how to make a shotgun out of parts from homedepot is that ITAR controlled information?

They were exporting speech, that is it. Just a set of instructions.

Re:wtf (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year ago | (#43679373)

The same way they have authority over physical arms exporters, they see it as being accessible from hostile states and thus it is an IP export. I would also not be surprised if some people there still see the modern internet as their network.

Re:wtf (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679445)

The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), in accordance with 22 U.S.C. 2778-2780 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR Parts 120-130), is charged with controlling the export and temporary import of defense articles and defense services covered by the United States Munitions List (USML).

USML: http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/documents/official_itar/ITAR_Part_121.pdf

http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/documents/official_itar/ITAR_Part_120.pdf

Section 120.10 Technical data.
(a) Technical datameans, for purposes of this subchapter:
(1) Information, other than software as defined in 120.10(a)(4), which is required for the design, development, production, manufacture, assembly, operation, repair, testing, maintenance or modification of defense articles. This includes information in the form of blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation.

Google is your friend. I assumed DEFCAF would not cave so easily unless presented with a proper legal justification. Although, they might just be complying to avoid large legal fees since the files are already distributed and they are not needed any longer to spread them.

Wait for it ... (2)

Tiger Smile (78220) | about a year ago | (#43679089)

Streisand Effect!

Very fast (2)

ClayDowling (629804) | about a year ago | (#43679115)

A couple of hours ago i downloaded and printed a design from that site. I also proved why this is a gigantic non-issue: getting a good print from a 3d printer is very involved. The machines need a lot of fiddling to get them working right. My magazine, which was supposed to be flat bottomed, had a distinctive curve to it that did not make for a good working part.

Re:Very fast (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#43679391)

Sounds like you need to use a bit of hairspray on your hotplate [thingiverse.com] , you had lifting.

hidden weapons (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679157)

This is good technology to make guns that can be disguised as something else. Once you have the basic "gun" component you just wrap it in whatever shell you want.

Re:hidden weapons (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43679343)

Then you have made an NFA weapon. You will need a tax stamp and lots of paperwork. It will take about 6-8 months for you to get that approval.

Not getting such paperwork will mean you lose the right to own weapons and get to spend many years in a correctional facility.

Re:hidden weapons (1)

He Who Has No Name (768306) | about a year ago | (#43679399)

That would already be governed in the US by the National Firearms Act, as an AOW (Any Other Weapon). Making one without paying a tax is a 10 year federal felony.

DOS != DOD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679169)

DoD isn't mentioned at all in the article. Its the Department of State that issued the letter.

ITAR (1)

blahblahwoofwoof (2287010) | about a year ago | (#43679171)

International Traffic in Arms Regulations (http://pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar_official.html)

There's the underlying reason

Oh, don't worry! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679217)

It's not that the fascist police state the US has become is ever more overtly assertive. The corporatist's political flunkies aren't using an ever-bigger boot on our throats. Our Constitutionally-limited government can't possibly have degenerated into an irredeemably corrupt Orwellian proxy for Wall Street!

Only a tin-foil hatted conspiracy freak or drug-addled anarchist would think that!

Wait...what?

Re:Oh, don't worry! (5, Insightful)

some old guy (674482) | about a year ago | (#43679297)

The problem isn't government. The problem is the passive, benighted electorate that tolerates it. We, as a population, get the government we deserve.

Due process (2)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year ago | (#43679245)

Wasn't there something about due process in some document or other somewhere? Something about a warrant needed before the government can take action?

I can understand taking action as part of the legal process - confiscating evidence as part of filing for criminal charges, for instance. But can the government simply act unilaterally with no oversight? Has it always been this way?

Is it always "government does what it wants with no oversight, and the victim has to get the courts involved?"

Seems like that might be a good change to be included in the next constitution.

Truly Absurd (4, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43679253)

There are plenty of parts of the world where they don't have electricity or indoor plumbing, but you can get a local gunsmith to bang out a good copy of an AK-47 (the skills of these guys w/ simple hand tools amazes me, even if I'm not always thrilled w/ their customers). But design files for a plastic zip gun threaten national security?

Re:Truly Absurd (2)

a1cypher (619776) | about a year ago | (#43679513)

Well, I could see it being a problem simply because they are plastic. Think of all of the places where you have to pass through metal detectors for security. This "gun" will not set off a detector (unless the maker was kind enough to include the chunk of metal designed to set off detectors).

Desperate people may not care that the gun isn't very safe or usable; all it takes is one bullet to assassinate someone, one bullet to kill somebody in a prison, one bullet to hijack a plane (maybe not quite doable on a plane, but maybe with more than one person with these plastic weaposn?). It also would make an excellent untraceable murder weapon. Build gun which just has to fire one round, do your business, and then toss the gun into a fire where it can be completely destroyed.

This is an outrage! I'm calling my congrssman! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679275)

DoD Descends On DECAF

Fortunately my congressman is Goodlatte [slashdot.org] . He'll make sure they leave decaf alone.

Sound of dogs baying, getting closer (-1, Troll)

Darth Snowshoe (1434515) | about a year ago | (#43679277)

You know, Cody the law student should very well have seen this coming. Duh.

I for one am gratified by the efficient workings of our Federal government in representing its citizens' interests. If Mr. Come-and-Take-It wants to pose as such a bad-ass anarchist, and talk shit on YouTube about destabilizing governments and giving everyone a machine gun, then he should get ready to run like a fugitive, and never sleep in the same room twice again. It's treason to plot the violent overthow of your own government.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer (5, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43679347)

It's treason to plot the violent overthow of your own government.

Trash talk is hardly a plot. Absent specific and concrete plans to do what you say, there can't be any charges for what he says. Otherwise we'll have abandoned Freedom of Speech, at which point the overthrow would be a good idea.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43679351)

It's treason to plot the violent overthow of your own government.

That may be the case... However. Let me introduce to to a little thing we call US History.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679425)

When one has not the WEALTH nor EDUCATION nor PEDIGREE to live elsewhere in the world, there really is no other choice.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer (2)

He Who Has No Name (768306) | about a year ago | (#43679427)

You're assuming this wasn't part of the plan.

What pushes his ideology farther along the path, puttering away in semi-obscurity on his website, or invoking the full speed and fury of the internet's anti-censorship reflexes and spreading these files so far and wide they'll be easily available forever?

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year ago | (#43679435)

Huh, someone should have told those folks back in 1775 about that.

Department of State, NOT Department of Defense (1)

andb52 (854780) | about a year ago | (#43679353)

There is a significant difference between the two. For example, one is involved here and the other is not. The article (and the underlying letter) clearly explain that it is the Department of State that has taken these actions. The summary and headline must be changed.

Publicity Stunt! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679393)

Is there any actual information that doesn't originate from "DEFCAD" that anyone other than themselves is involved in this? We have the "full text" of a letter and information from DEFCAD. Normally one would expect a copy of the letter that at least looks somewhat official. Though "Glenn E. Smith" is mentioned in a few places as "Chief, Enforcement Divison", "Ms Bridget Van Buren" has nothing but a LinkedIn profile .. anywhere.

Plus there was no reason to "go dark" with the entire site, even if the letter is real, simply remove the "offending" material.

Sounds like a publicity stunt.

Hash values (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679407)

Any1 Got the hashes for those files, Free them, I would love it. Both SHA1 and MD5 at least, please!

Re:Hash values (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679443)

The Defense Distributed file pack. Hashes:

MD5: F4784E3C4C6B6D851C3F2CFD8579B2A6
SHA-1: 3B733B62D8D3B08DE9BFFB94CDD308C18BF09BB0
SHA-256: 8B3247FE5145E87ABA5B91A6DFCA26193E5472C60AF279223CE5A92611A24D31

The Liberator. Hashes:

MD5: 26DE1E830AC58C078650B69C4D34602E
SHA-1: AA33BC73264B80B87D21FF8D56DE02EAECDA3574
SHA-256: 763927D34CE89B550A118E3522181FC434632D6D6188CB82E1612096A613C4AA

It's a ruse (1)

DnemoniX (31461) | about a year ago | (#43679409)

I absolutely do not think that this will end up being an ITAR restricted item. However, it does seem to provide politicians enough time to cram through some poorly thought out legislation creating an outright ban on them.

-1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679429)

For free speech.

Re:-1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43679493)

Thanks for the hashes: a veteran.

Can't we wait for this tech...` (2)

Lendrick (314723) | about a year ago | (#43679457)

...to become a bit more ubiquitous before we start alarming politicians into making it illegal by using it to manufacture weapons?

We don't want 3D printing to become "isn't that how people make plastic guns?" to the lay public. It's too important of a technology, and given how potentially disruptive it is to the business models of a lot of large companies with a shit ton of money, you can bet that people are already talking about how to get rid of it.

So please, if you must design guns for 3D printers, keep the designs private until the public is familiar enough with the technology that they won't buy the alarmist "O NOES, GUNS" excuse that politicians will invariably use to keep people from buying 3D printers.

Re:Can't we wait for this tech...` (1)

He Who Has No Name (768306) | about a year ago | (#43679471)

The tech is very well propagated and entrenched across a multitude of industries and has been for years now.

It's not going anywhere. It's also much, much too easy for people to build at home.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>