zlacker

>>ptorro+(OP)
I think it's interesting to note that not only is there precedent for this type of "blocking technology that prevents the printing of certain things"[1], but it's also inconsequential and uncontroversial enough that most of the people here obviously have never even heard of it.

We lost the ability to print $50 bills with our HPs[2] and it had no noticeable negative impact on society. I'm not sure why losing the ability to print a gun with our Prusas will be any different.

[1] - https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/cant-photocopy-scan-cu...

[2] - https://h30434.www3.hp.com/t5/Printers-Archive-Read-Only/Won...

>>slg+CN1
Images of authentic $50 bills are pretty easily detected. They are designed that way.

It's not technically possible to detect "gun geometry".

The only way to comply with this law is to ban 3d printers entirely.

>>tantal+KO1
Good news, as the article notes, the proposed regulation creates a working group to determine of it is feasible and won't require any further regulation if it is found nonfeasible. If you're right and this does prove to be "not technically possible", then nothing will actually change.

>>slg+DQ1
Hopefully this working group would do the right thing but the worldwide battle against end-to-end encryption is a pretty bad precedent. Experts who disagree with government surveillance demands seem to get discarded and replaced with yes-men. The California microstamping law isn't a good situation either.