The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 1, 2018, 11:13 PM   #1
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,870
Defense Distributed, et al

So, the DoJ made a settlement with Defense Distributed, dropping their attempts to ban design files for 3D printed firearms (at least the "not inherently military" kind.)
Recently, a federal judge placed a stay on that settlement, keeping the restrictions against publishing the designs...from what I've read. Can anyone explain how/why/what legal mechanism the judge is using to determine ITAR rules for the government body that is supposed to do that, and why the judge has that power? ...or is it based on different legislation?
raimius is offline  
Old August 2, 2018, 01:56 AM   #2
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,623
First point, a "stay" is supposed to be just that, a TEMPORARY hold on something until some legal issue is resolved. It may actually last years, but its not a permanent prohibition.

Second, I have no idea what the judge is using for his reasoning, and in practical terms it doesn't matter, as what ever his ruling is will stand until/unless another judge with higher authority overrules it.

Of course a judge should have some legal reason, but they can rule on something just because "the sky is blue today" and it will stand until the legal challenge process runs it course.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 2, 2018, 07:28 AM   #3
jmhyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 710
I heard a brief blurb on talk radio yesterday but didn't get the whole context. They were talking about publishing such designs on the open internet in the context of copyright infringement issues. So, maybe that's the angle of the judge who issued the stay???
jmhyer is offline  
Old August 2, 2018, 08:49 AM   #4
Ricklin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2008
Location: SW Washington state
Posts: 1,355
The whole thing

The entire situation with regard to the files for 3D printing is downright silly.

The genie is out of the bottle for heavens sake.

Like the emperor the genie has no clothes.
__________________
ricklin
Freedom is not free
Ricklin is offline  
Old August 2, 2018, 10:55 AM   #5
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 3,372
So........ Defense Distributed in enjoined from distributing the files.

Oh wait, the files in question have been downloaded millions of times already.

Oh wait, the same files are available on *numerous* sites as we speak.
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابياً
TXAZ is offline  
Old August 2, 2018, 10:56 AM   #6
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 3,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricklin View Post

The genie is out of the bottle for heavens sake.
WAY OUT. In many areas!
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابياً
TXAZ is offline  
Old August 2, 2018, 11:32 AM   #7
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,623
Quote:
So........ Defense Distributed in enjoined from distributing the files.
Again!

Quote:
Oh wait, the files in question have been downloaded millions of times already.
Doesn't matter.


Quote:
Oh wait, the same files are available on *numerous* sites as we speak.
Also doesn't matter!

As I understand the matter, the entire thing is about 1st Amendment rights (free speech) and just happens to involve 2nd Amendment items (firearms) and the one(s?) in this specific case are 3D-printed. The legal issue isn't about plastic guns, or even 3D printed guns (that is a red herring) it is about international distribution (the internet) of firearms (and firearms technology, including plans) without the Government's permission.

How many times the files were downloaded before the government ordered Defense Distributed to stop doing it doesn't matter.

Also how many other places one can get the information doesn't matter to the case, directly, either.

And it seems that DD "won" their case (by reaching a settlement) and that the day before they were going to resume putting their plans on the Internet, a judge issued a stay order, preventing them from doing so, for reasons that are not clear at this time.

SO, it seems that, even if you win your case against the govt, the govt will still stop you from doing what it doesn't like, by other means....

The root cause of the issues seems to be a zealous and over broad interpretation of ITAR regulations.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 2, 2018, 12:01 PM   #8
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,313
If the government has already settled with them who is bringing the case ? Individual states ? Individual persons ?

Quote:
Recently, a federal judge placed a stay on that settlement, keeping the restrictions against publishing the designs.
How did it get to his/her courtroom ?
__________________
Tolerate- allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with , without interference.
If you have some time IMO this is worth a listen/watch but it takes a few minutes to really get going .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg3NR76XpQ&t=3265s or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY
Metal god is offline  
Old August 2, 2018, 11:55 PM   #9
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,870
From what I've read, it was state AGs who brought it before the court, but why a state AG would get involved in ITAR is beyond me... which is part of why I asked.
raimius is offline  
Old August 3, 2018, 12:50 AM   #10
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by raimius
From what I've read, it was state AGs who brought it before the court, but why a state AG would get involved in ITAR is beyond me... which is part of why I asked.
Because (1) they hate and fear "assault weapons; (2) they don't really understand that you can't create a functional, reliable firearm capable of killing hundreds of people on a home 3-D printer; and (3) they hate and fear "assault weapons.

They don't care about ITAR. They don't want US to be able to download those files.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 4, 2018, 09:52 AM   #11
vicGT
Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2017
Posts: 30
Quote:
As I understand the matter, the entire thing is about 1st Amendment rights (free speech) and just happens to involve 2nd Amendment items (firearms) and the one(s?) in this specific case are 3D-printed. The legal issue isn't about plastic guns, or even 3D printed guns (that is a red herring) it is about international distribution (the internet) of firearms (and firearms technology, including plans) without the Government's permission.
This makes sense to me.

The thing I don't understand is that ITAR has a public domain restriction...they can't restrict things that have already been in the public domain (like engineering knowledge) even if they think those things are dangerous, etc. Old information (1911 specs, AR specs, etc) being posted on the internet for some years is about the most public of public domains I can imagine. Seems odd that a judge would miss this, or maybe I'm just misconstruing it.

There's also the whole "export" definition. Export has a pretty specific meaning, and afaik that meaning has nothing to do with the internet. So is this some new power the judge just granted ITAR out of thin air?

Then, if we say that ITAR has some ability to take what you're going to publish on the internet and censor it, isn't that a prior restraint on free speech?

Maybe none of these things matter because it was just a ruling that an injunction can continue, not an actual case on the merits.

Quote:
From what I've read, it was state AGs who brought it before the court, but why a state AG would get involved in ITAR is beyond me... which is part of why I asked.
I suppose they represent their states, and if their states feel they could be harmed by these files being available on this particular website, then the supposition that they might be harmed gives them standing to at least ask the court for protection?

Of course it's ridiculous, the files have never not been available elsewhere on the internet (therefore everywhere), so the addition or subtraction of one website doesn't change a thing, so what relief could the court grant them?
vicGT is offline  
Old August 8, 2018, 05:43 AM   #12
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,929
It may not matter to the case, but just as happened with PGP years ago, the cat has gotten out of the bag, she had kittens, the kittens have shredded the bag, and that makes arguments over how to get her back in that bag a bit moot.

The Kittens at CodeIsFreeSpeech.com won't be stopped by any judge.
publius42 is offline  
Old August 8, 2018, 09:48 AM   #13
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by publius42
It may not matter to the case, but just as happened with PGP years ago, ...
PGP?

Please translate.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 8, 2018, 10:25 AM   #14
rwilson452
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,613
Quote:
PGP?

Please translate.
PGP was software to encrypt your email. Uncle couldn't crack it. They were forcing the programmer(s) to put in a back door so they could. They finally did put in a back door but the original version was still all over the internet.

PGP ( Pretty Good Protection )
__________________
USNRET '61-'81
rwilson452 is offline  
Old August 8, 2018, 01:13 PM   #15
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,168
Does OpenPGP ( https://www.openpgp.org/ ) have a back door built in? According to their web page

Quote:
OpenPGP was standardized in 1997 and since then continuously improved. As far as we know, intelligence organizations aren’t able to break it.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 8, 2018, 07:15 PM   #16
vicGT
Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2017
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
Does OpenPGP ( https://www.openpgp.org/ ) have a back door built in?
It sort of can't....Open PGP is a standard (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880), not an implementation. The standard describes how to build something, like a recipe you might follow in the kitchen. A recipe can't give you food sickness (directly)...although I suppose an irresponsible recipe might consistently yield products which put you at high risk. It could be argued that the standard linked above has some weakness which, when followed properly, yields a backdoor, but that is speculation, since many independent security organizations hammer away at Open PGP-based implementations regularly, and have never found such a thing....and there is a strong motivation to find security holes...a researcher who found a back door in the Open PGP standard would immediately secure his/her reputation as a security guru, and make a great deal of money.

An Open PGP-compliant implementation, such as GPG, can be at risk. If you are concerned about your chosen implementation having a back door, you can read the source code for yourself, if your chosen implementation makes it's source code available to you.

Last edited by vicGT; August 8, 2018 at 07:30 PM.
vicGT is offline  
Old August 8, 2018, 07:53 PM   #17
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 3,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by vicGT View Post
It sort of can't....Open PGP is a standard (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880), not an implementation. The standard describes how to build something, like a recipe you might follow in the kitchen. A recipe can't give you food sickness (directly)...although I suppose an irresponsible recipe might consistently yield products which put you at high risk. It could be argued that the standard linked above has some weakness which, when followed properly, yields a backdoor, but that is speculation, since many independent security organizations hammer away at Open PGP-based implementations regularly, and have never found such a thing...

I knew Phil Zimmerman when he developed PGP and announced it at Crypto ‘92 in the rump session and followed his export drama closely. I don’t believe he knowingly would have ever put a back door in it.

However, “open” or “standard” doesn’t mean there isn’t a backdoor.

Then there was RSA, the de facto key exchange PGP used, was ‘allegedly” caught putting suspicious code / a hint in their algorithm.

So what might look innocent to the Internet security crowd after years of investigation might actually be nothing, a debug port for developers or an open barn door to entities with substantial resources and can solve a very obscure math problem thought to be intractable.
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابياً
TXAZ is offline  
Old August 9, 2018, 04:01 AM   #18
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,929
PGP stands for Pretty Good Privacy, Phil's way of letting users know that there's no Perfect Privacy.

Sorry for bringing it up without further reference. The story is very similar today.

Back then, I went to a website where I could (and did) push a button that sent a copy of PGP to a server in Anguilla. That was a felony at the time. I was proud to be one of the kittens shredding the bag.

I spent some time yesterday spreading CodeIsFreeSpeech.com around the internet, taking only a short break to post pics of Xi and Winnie the Pooh. Just let me know if there's something else that will annoy any censor anywhere in the world and I'll stop what I'm doing and spread it.
publius42 is offline  
Old August 13, 2018, 05:44 AM   #19
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,929
It was bound to happen.

You can get the Liberator code in a bound paper volume.

Hah!
Quote:
Here is a book that you need to buy that many in the gun control industry would like to see banned. It is called The Liberator Code Book: An Exercise in Free Speech. The book is exactly what it says it is - the 3-D printing code for the Liberator pistol in book form. Think of the $15 cost of this book as a donation to the advancement of free speech.
I just love kittens!
publius42 is offline  
Old August 27, 2018, 06:06 AM   #20
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,929
I guess they don't like kittens so much over at Amazon. The link is dead, the Liberator Code Book is banned from their market.

Instead of just buying one for myself, I'm thinking everyone on my Christmas list should get one this year.
publius42 is offline  
Old August 27, 2018, 11:48 AM   #21
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,623
While I understand, and agree with the principle, you can leave me off the Christmas list for that particular book.

I simply have no use for a book of instructions how to program a piece of equipment I don't own (and am not going to own) in order to make a piece of crap single shot pistol.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 28, 2018, 06:02 AM   #22
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,929
I have a use for it: aggravating censors. I've paid way more for far worse entertainment.
publius42 is offline  
Old August 30, 2018, 02:30 AM   #23
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,313
Did I hear right . The guy is now selling the blueprint claiming he is only bared from postimng them online for free ????
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/a...-them-instead/

Interesting, can he set up a wesite that allows anyone in the United States to download the blueprint but you must pay a very small fee to enter the site ? Like a dollar or even a penny ??? That way he can claim he is selling the blueprint rather then giving it away ??
__________________
Tolerate- allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of something that one does not necessarily like or agree with , without interference.
If you have some time IMO this is worth a listen/watch but it takes a few minutes to really get going .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USg3NR76XpQ&t=3265s or a picture of Mohamed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VwpwP_fIqY

Last edited by Metal god; August 30, 2018 at 02:38 AM.
Metal god is offline  
Old August 30, 2018, 04:19 AM   #24
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god
Did I hear right . The guy is now selling the blueprint claiming he is only bared from postimng them online for free ????
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/a...-them-instead/

Interesting, can he set up a wesite that allows anyone in the United States to download the blueprint but you must pay a very small fee to enter the site ? Like a dollar or even a penny ??? That way he can claim he is selling the blueprint rather then giving it away ??
I've been looking for the actual injunction but I'm not having any luck. But ...

My fuzzy, layman's understanding is that the injunction prohibits Cody Wilson from making the 3-D file available on-line for download. So what he is doing now is selling a printed book that sets forth the code. To use it, you would have to type the code into your own editor to put it back into digital form.

(Or just download it from a bit torrent site.)
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 31, 2018, 05:58 AM   #25
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,929
Cody Wilson is not making the plans available for download and it's someone else who published the book.

Cody Wilson will send you the naughty files on a flash drive and you can pay what you want.

He suggests ten bucks. But he'll only send them to US addresses because such files are only naughty if foreigners have them.


Quote:
Previously, Defense Distributed had given the files away for free, globally.

"I’m happy to become the iTunes of 3D guns if I can’t be Napster,"

...

Wilson reiterated the move to sell is not motivated in any way by profit and that Defense Distributed remains financially stable. "We’re not desperate for cash, we’re just covering costs," he said. "I remember when Radiohead did this, they said they didn’t make real money for this… I don’t expect to either. There’s plenty of people who don't want this, don't care, until they see the Attorney General of Pennsylvania doesn’t want you to have it."

Throughout his initial statement and while fielding questions from the press, Wilson maintained his main motivation was First Amendment-related. He called out companies like Facebook and Amazon for previously censoring users from posting Defense Distributed file links (the former) or taking down books for sale (the latter) that contained code for the Liberator, the company's blueprinted handgun.

"Today I want to clarify, anyone who wants these files will get them—I’ll sell them, I'll ship them," he continued. "The free exchange of these ideas will never be interrupted. I’m also inviting the public to share their own files and share the profit with me.


I guess the kittens are going to have to shred the bag down to a molecular level before censors get the point.
publius42 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09070 seconds with 8 queries