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
Huge, important distinctions:

Manufacturing firearms is not unlawful in the State of New York, nor is it unlawful federally.

As far as I can tell, there is no federal or state law that compels any company to add features like the ones HP has added to their products. I have not spent a large amount of time researching. Just browsed a few articles like this one https://www.itestcash.com/blogs/news/your-guide-to-federal-c....

>>propel+884
I'll point out that I didn't mention the law in my first comment. I don't know the history of how this technology came to be so ubiquitous, so I didn't speak to it. However, from the perspective of a consumer, it doesn't really matter if it was due to regulation from the government or a collective decision of manufacturers to regulate themselves before the government intervened. The end result is still that the printer you buy from the local Best Buy will almost certainly block this. That is the precedent I was referencing and the collective loss that has gone unnoticed.

I also don't see the point about manufacturing firearms as particularly convincing. It was a process that used to be more difficult and technology has made that process substantially easier. It's reasonable for a government to think the old process didn't need regulation due to that complexity while the new technology intensifies the problem enough for a government response. New technology prompts new regulation all the time for exactly this reason.

>>slg+EK4
This is legislation. Legislation that grants the government veto-power over what you can create. The entire issue here is law. The fact that you "...didn't mention the law..." in your first comment is stunning.

From the text of the proposed legislation, this blocking technology needs to fail closed. This means that you need a form of permission to start a manufacturing process. It compels each entity involved in the supply chain to add this government kill-switch from slicing software, firmware developers, 3D printer manufactures, etc.

The entire premiss for this? To stop individuals from manufacturing firearms and firearm components WHICH IS A LAWFUL ACTIVITY! Unbelievable that anyone would defend such government overreach.

Your motivations are transparent. You are using regurgitated anti-gun arguments. Arguments that have been thoroughly dismantled by SCOTUS. Many before you have used this logical fallacy that advancements in technology give the government a pass to interfere with individuals and their rights. Even very progressive judges have conceded that the first amendment is certainly not limited to quill and ink, but applies to the Internet. Additionally, the advent of strong cryptography does not give the government a reason to strip people of their 4th and 5th amendment protections.

>>propel+S45
>The entire premiss for this? To stop individuals from manufacturing firearms and firearm components WHICH IS A LAWFUL ACTIVITY!

Everything is a lawful activity until they make a law outlawing it. You're arguing against the idea of all new laws.

>Your motivations are transparent. You are using regurgitated anti-gun arguments.

I wasn't hiding anything. I think stricter gun regulations would be a net benefit for an American society that is way too obsessed with guns. The voters of New York generally agree with that idea. The last few months have also made it clear that all the years of 2nd Amendment advocates talking about us needing guns to fight tyranny have been lying about their motivations. So if we're demanding transparency, let's also be clear that there is no deeper ideology at play here beyond a love of guns.