WA State to require DRM blocking, eliminates open-source. makes owners guilty until proven innocent  

Duplicate: WA State to require DRM blocking, eliminates open-source. makes owners guilty until proven innocent

Sorry for duplication due to a double click.

RE: WA State to require DRM blocking, eliminates open-source. makes owners guilty until proven innocent

Sounds like a good solution is to stop selling to Washington State... They can do without.

RE:

It's not exactly a new concept. Photocopiers have been prevented from copying banknotes for decades.

But it was easier to implement there, since the same players who have an interest to protect the banknotes are also controlling their design -- so they can incorporate clearly recognizable features which photocopiers can detect.

In contrast, "recognizing printable guns" reliably seems very hard, since the designers of those items will have a keen interest to make them unrecognizable for the algorithms. Having read how some random dot patterns can still derail current AI solutions which try to read license plates or detect traffic signs, I fully expect each "gun detection algorithm" to be bypassed a week after its release.

I would be happy to live in a world without printable guns. Unfortunately I don't see how we would get there. Blocking algorithms as suggested in WA are probably not going to work.  

RE: WA State to require DRM blocking, eliminates open-source. makes owners guilty until proven innocent

I wish it were that isolated or easy. The problem is far more insidious because it concerns stl files and is not isolated to hardware. See https://www.youtube.com/@LoyalMoses on YouTube. New York has similar legislation. 

HB-2320 and HB-2321 work in concert. For example:

- If someone outside of Washington State sends a file/attachment to a WA resident that gets flagged, then the sender - outside of WA state - can be prosecuted. It does not matter if they use their own printer or a service that has to use the DRM.

- You work on a proprietary design with friends for a product. Washington State REQUIRES a 3rd party evaluate the shape file and approve it prior to printing. There is no restriction on who that 3rd party is or what country they are in so (A) a data breach leaks your design (so sorry) or, (B) the AI/LLM that approves your shape needs to be trained that it is okay. This latter case which means the AI/LLM can be used elsewhere to generate a derivative work. Such AI derivative works are already a huge problem in the publishing and entertainment industry. 

The only solution is to contact the lawmakers and prevent such laws. The system can only work when citizens participate. This means making your friends in the affected states know about the problem (currently WA and NY).

Hopefully, companies such as Prusa can get involved because once adopted, such legislation will spread. 

Consider the implications for 3d printer companies and families: A child downloads and prints a cosplay prop or part for their airsoft gun using their own printer or a service - then the police show up at the family home.  Perhaps nothing happens or the child gets a warning, but the intimidation is real. 

RE: WA State to require DRM blocking, eliminates open-source. makes owners guilty until proven innocent

The shooter in Japan showed you just need a hardware store. See wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm.

RE: WA State to require DRM blocking, eliminates open-source. makes owners guilty until proven innocent

Posted by: @southofseattle

I wish it were that isolated or easy. The problem is far more insidious because it concerns stl files and is not isolated to hardware.

[...]

Consider the implications for 3d printer companies and families: A child downloads and prints a cosplay prop or part for their airsoft gun using their own printer or a service - then the police show up at the family home.  Perhaps nothing happens or the child gets a warning, but the intimidation is real. 

But again, the actual problem is the inability to reliably identify the outlawed files, I think.

Sharing or having certain types of files is illegal in many legislations -- child pornography for example. That's a good thing. Personally I would not mind if design files for printable guns were in the same category. But as you say, false positives (harmless files misidentified as "guns") are bound to be at least as common as false negatives (gun designs cleverly disguised to bypass automated detection).

RE: WA State to require DRM blocking, eliminates open-source. makes owners guilty until proven innocent

Correct, and I note that 2D recognition is MUCH simpler than 3D.

We sadly see mass shooting almost daily in the US using legally purchased guns. Draw your own conclusions about the efficacy of this legislation on US gun violence. If you think yes, tell your legislator. If you think no, tell your legislator.

Even a few emails at the state level can make a difference. Thus, my hope is that a few US PRUSA users will contact their legislators as a result of this post, if for no other reason than the impact on open source software and to prevent state required examination of everything they print. 

This forum seems like a good source to reach these users (specifically WA state and New York as both have pending legislation). A couple of days ago, this topic and loss of these daily activities didn't cross my mind. I also note that it is really hard to get rights back after they are taken away.

The 3D geometric shape space search in non-trivial and not solved. Even experienced machinists cannot identify how a part will be used from just the shape. 

For illustration, a favorite story is how the allies manufactured radar tubes in WWII. The Germans used traditional construction techniques including precision machining. Excellent but limited production. The Allies stamped the pieces out of metal and goobered (meaning glued) them together with silver solder (See stacked plate construction).

So, think of the combinatorial ways plates can be glued together with a strong glue like epoxy to create something dangerous. These 3D printed plates can also be printed at different times and locations. This means that the monitoring software has to watch what a suspect is printing over time across all accessible printers, including friends and services in-state, out-of-state, and out-of-country.

A ghost gun database cannot be inclusive enough. I believe there are too many permutations and ways to obfuscate a print to be stored or learned by an AI/LLM.

Wish us luck

So: they are legislating against the production of firearms or parts of firearms on computer controlled machinery ... on the whole I approve of the intent but this attempt at legislation is ludicrously unenforceable.

" ...any digital instructions in the form of computer-aided design files or other code or instructions stored and displayed in electronic format... "

Even a digital photograph containing a picture of a weapon, for example a movie poster or a book cover, could be used to digitally extrude a shape that could be used to master a weapon.

Or text, the code:

difference(){
  cylinder(d=external_diameter, h=length);
  cylinder(d=internal_diameter, h=length);
}

Can be invoked to produce a washer, a bracelet - or a gun barrel and so presumably would break the proposed law.

- yes, that's a very crude gun barrel but terrorists have, for many years, made viable firearms from plumbing supplies that are as crude.

Effectively they are proposing to legislate against all modern technology - email this to your representative(s) and point out that they are reading this as transmitted and displayed in electronic format and the file is stored on their mail server and/or client...

Cheerio,

RE: WA State to require DRM blocking, eliminates open-source. makes owners guilty until proven innocent

Those so called “legislators” in WA State remind me of what Einstein said once: there’re only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and I’m not so sure about the universe.

RE: WA State to require DRM blocking, eliminates open-source. makes owners guilty until proven innocent

I continue to be glad my parents moved us out of that crap state and back to Alaska when I was little.  

They can pass their law but it's clear the people who wrote it don't understand how any of it works, technically.  Even if they somehow managed to make a system that could scan for common gun shapes, somebody will come along with something like this:

Sumdood showed up at SHOT show with this thing this year.  I've looked at the files, and I promise you that by its nature, very little of it will flag as being firearm parts.  I assume they would have people uploading exact files for stuff like this into the database, but there are plenty of ways to get around that.  And except for in a handful of jurisdictions, this is completely legal to construct throughout most of the US, since it's entirely manually operated (commercially built gatlings have been available forever).  OTOH, having looked through the build manual, even with printing the parts, something like this will still be beyond the ability of most.  Some of the design aspects hurt my brain since little to no effort was made with regard to printability, and anybody building it is going to become real familiar with removal of supports.  But it looks like quite a few people have bitten, because for shits and giggles I looked up the specific size of heat set insert it calls for, and they have completely disappeared from Amazon.  It would be a lot of time and effort to go to for something that's basically a range toy with little practical application, but you've gotta respect the effort that went into it.

RE: WA State to require DRM blocking, eliminates open-source. makes owners guilty until proven innocent

What do you expect from a bunch of dipsticks (politicians) that wanted to pass into law a tax on cow farts, did not meet with their new green agenda. However some cow farts are green. This is just one more thing to come out that babble factory in Olympia. They couldn't even get the beer Olympia) right, worst swill on the market.

RE: WA State to require DRM blocking, eliminates open-source. makes owners guilty until proven innocent

Colorado is after their own freedom hating legislation to regulate what you can/can't print or machine. This state has lost it's mind and the politicians have gone feral. They truly do not care about public pushback, and the voters are too dumb to remember it when it comes time for re-election. There is zero accountability for politicians in this state.

RE: WA State to require DRM blocking, eliminates open-source. makes owners guilty until proven innocent

This thread kind of overstates what the WA bills actually do.

They don’t make people “guilty until proven innocent.” The language targets intentional use or distribution of files for illegal, unregistered firearms, not simple possession of STLs or owning a printer. Due process and burden of proof still apply here.

They also don’t ban open source or require a blanket DRM. The bills set functional safety requirements for printers sold in WA (blocking known illegal weapon designs), which open-source firmware can still meet—just like other regulated hardware does.

From what I can see, there’s no mandate for mass surveillance of print jobs. This is about product compliance, not monitoring casual hobbyists.

If there’s a real concern, it’s whether the technical requirements are feasible or too broad—not that the state is trying to kill open-source 3D printing.

RE:

I'm not an attorney. Regardless, draw your own conclusions.

Shorts

Argument 1 "Overstates guilt": https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3hDHAEuWpwg  

Argument 2 "ban open source", note WA law applies worldwide: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Rhao2wfs0AM and https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XYOC0zdSqzI as manufacturers have to attest to Washington State that DRM cannot be overridden (think open source, replacement controller, ,,,), and not deliver flagged shapes. Watch out PRUSA, and Printables, and everyone else

--- TL;DR see www.youtube.com/@LoyalMoses for much more detail, ---------------------

Briefly,

1) The bill in its current form states, “Possession of digital firearm manufacturing code for an unfinished frame or receiver creates a rebuttable presumption of an intent to unlawfully distribute the code or manufacture an unfinished frame or receiver in violation of this subsection” (ref sec. 6, p30, lines 13-16).

The Cornell Law school ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rebuttable_presumption) states: "A rebuttable presumption is a legal inference or assumption that a court accepts as true unless it is disproven by competent evidence. [...]"

I read this as telling the judge that he needs to assume the defendant intended to "unlawfully distribute the code or manufacture an unfinished frame or receiver". In other words, perform an unlawful (e.g., illegal) act.

Scenario:  A child downloads and/or prints an item flagged by the AI, say a cosplay gun prop, then the police show up or the parents get served.

Per the legislation, the judge has to start with a presumption that the child's act was unlawful, either by themselves or at the direction of some ill-intentioned adult. The child will very likely not be charged (I hope), but the monetary (and stress) consequences are real. 

Is this desirable?

2) Humm, so open source software and firmware without DRM is allowed? Draw your own conclusions, but the section 2 of HB-2321 specifically precludes installing non-DRM open-source software because the manufacturer does not control that software:

"(2) "Equipped with blocking features" means a three-dimensional printer has integrated a software controls process that deploys a firearms blueprint detection algorithm, such that those features identify and reject print requests for firearms or illegal firearm  parts with a high degree of reliability and cannot be overridden or otherwise defeated by a user with significant technical skill." 

It further states, "(b) The manufacturer of the printer has attested to the29 integration of blocking features pursuant to subsection (2) [...]". This reads that if someone does defeat the blocking features, say by installing open-source software (or a new controller), the manufacturer can be sued. 

I read this a liability issue for PRUSA.

See 

and

To stay current, follow www.youtube.com/@LoyalMoses. I am not affiliated. This channel is only an information source.

RE: WA State to require DRM blocking, eliminates open-source. makes owners guilty until proven innocent

The last video link was taken down. Here is an alternative: 

RE: WA State to require DRM blocking, eliminates open-source. makes owners guilty until proven innocent

It must be more terrible than we know living on the leftcoast. Best solutions to your problems....move.
Printing firearms will take care of itself as they blow up in the user's hands. This approach will be about as effective as banning the copying of video tapes, CDs, and DVDs. downloading movies, etc. We know how well that worked!

To update a quote from above. Genius is different from stupidity because genius has limits.

RE: WA State to require DRM blocking, eliminates open-source. makes owners guilty until proven innocent

This reminds of me of speed bumps on roads. A minority of people are irresponsible drivers, which causes accidents by them driving too fast, which causes the state to try and discourage this bad behavior by installing speed bumps everywhere, which then affects the daily life of the overwhelming majority who drive responsibly. 

I won't take a stance for or against this bill, but in general I support more freedom + more personal responsibility. But I will say that I at least understand how people can be swayed to support this bill. However, like SouthOfSeattle said:

Posted by: @southofseattle

We sadly see mass shooting almost daily in the US using legally purchased guns. Draw your own conclusions about the efficacy of this legislation on US gun violence.

RE:

Posted by: @mac-n4mcc

Printing firearms will take care of itself as they blow up in the user's hands. 

AFAIK, almost nobody in the 3D2A movement is using plastic, 3d printed or otherwise, for pressure bearing components.  Other than maybe a handful of guys experimenting with things like printed cartridges.  None of the proposed legislation will do much to impact the ability to produce one's own firearms, for all of the reasons previously mentioned, plus the fact that the printers really aren't all that necessary to the endeavor.  Anyone with a relatively rudimentary metalworking capability in their garage can produce their own firearm.  The printer can make it slightly faster and easier, but you still need to have the ability to make the pressure bearing components out of metal.