[Discuss] public files vs export control laws

Matt Joyce matt at nycresistor.com
Fri May 10 21:11:26 UTC 2013 

I've been following another thread on another hackerspaces list regarding
3d printing.

And I think the right answer here is not to prevent regulation, but rather
to take a position as the people guiding it.  Regulation is going to become
a necessity.  Not just because of mills, and 3d printers.  But because of
molecular assembly automation and other areas that are moving into the
realm of possible use in industry.

Maybe OSHW should be working with a group to reach out to senators and
congress men with productive ideas on how to approach these emerging
technologies in a positive manner.  Lead rather than shout down others.

-Matt


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Matt Joyce <matt at nycresistor.com> wrote:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT3772yhr0o  I think makerbot did a pretty
> good job on the PR front regarding 3d printing with this piece.
>
>
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:02 PM, malcolm stanley <
> a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The more we play up success in other areas of work, the less we need to
>> respond negatively to the gun thing.
>> In PR a useful principle to remember is that + > -, and you always want
>> to steer toward the + slde.
>>
>> A good approach is to use the "YES and..." approach that improv comedy
>> uses.
>>
>> IOW, when people say "opensource and 3D printing = free guns on the
>> streets" it is not good to say "Thats really bad and we don't like it." as
>> a leading argument.
>>
>> Its much more positive to say "YES, AND also manufacturing jobs, new
>> medical treatments, prosthetic limbs for kids, Rockets to Mars, and whole
>> host of other things, all of which show the power of technology for good as
>> well as evil."
>>
>> We can then note that because even some of those good things can be
>> dangerous if done wrong, there will sometimes need to be some semblance of
>> regulation or oversight on the things being produced, to ensure that the benefits
>> are realized and the dangers avoided. Again, a positive message.
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________
>> malcolm stanley
>>
>> google.voice:  215.821.6252
>> Cell: 267.251.9479   <------------- new
>> email: a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com
>> twitter / linkedin: amstanley
>> Read my blog at http://soaringhorse.blogspot.com
>> _________________________________________
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Will Canine <willcanine at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I think open IP already in use and creating value is an important
>>> point to cover.
>>>
>>> In terms of tactics, I think having an already trusted voice in the
>>> field -- someone like Clay Shirky or Tim O'Rielly -- talk to a camera about
>>> this issue would really help bring a moderate voice into this discussion.
>>> Whether that is a youtube video or segment on a talkshow, whatever,
>>> something high profile. Obviously would require some high level media
>>> wrangling, but I think the right people might be interested if the right
>>> people ask them (this is probably not best done by committee).
>>>
>>> It is also useful in these situations to try and dream up the ideal
>>> headline you would like to see next as a response to all the "opensource
>>> and 3D printing = free guns on the streets" type ones we are seeing now. I
>>> think something like "Shirky to Wilson: 'The Open Community Doesn't Want
>>> Your Guns'" or something like that can work as a starting point -- any
>>> others? What lines are we trying to draw (a thick one dividing the broader
>>> open source movement and free guns, for example)?
>>>
>>> I think that the most immediate thing we can do is start talking to our
>>> friends and peers in this space and try to start sorting out how people
>>> feel, and if we feel strongly one way or the other, trying to influence
>>> others around us. I am sure none of us agree 100% on this issue, but I know
>>> we can find some common ground -- I think the bottom line is that we *
>>> could* use this media environment to continue pushing the story people
>>> on this list have been devoted to for years and years: the promise of an
>>> open economy.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Tom Igoe <t.igoe at arduino.cc> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree Will, good approach.  What tactics do you recommend?
>>>>
>>>> Let's try a positive tack: what examples of open IP can we point to
>>>> that are already influencing the general public's lives for the better?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> t.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 10, 2013, at 3:59 PM, Will Canine <willcanine at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think you're right that there is a danger if Cody Wilson's radical
>>>> voice is the only one people manage to hear -- and his combination of
>>>> two controversial subjects is, as you point out, a powerful amplifier.
>>>> People are listening, and the press is looking hungrily for the next step
>>>> in this story.
>>>>
>>>> We are not in a position to influence Cody's tactics, no matter how
>>>> ill-advised we might find them. We are, however, in a strong position to
>>>> offer the passionate, informed, and moderate counter point in a debate that
>>>> is gaining national attention. I think some sort of open letter or
>>>> interview, some sort of call for a debate, something, is in order.
>>>>
>>>> Bottom line: I think we should be talking about our own tactics in this
>>>> media situation, not just others'. What do you all think?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Matt Joyce <matt at nycresistor.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Flip side is of course you can argue that ITAR prevents other
>>>>> countries from competing with us by denying them access to our special
>>>>> sauce.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Tom Igoe <t.igoe at arduino.cc> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What's likely to shake ITAR is money going overseas because of it. If
>>>>>> I wanted to counter it, I'd show how the US is losing money because of it.
>>>>>>  As a country, we've shown quite decisively lately that we have no
>>>>>> political will to stop anything to do with weapons, but we sure as hell
>>>>>> care when a non-American takes a job we believe is ours (whether it is or
>>>>>> not).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> t.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 10, 2013, at 3:25 PM, Matt Joyce <matt at nycresistor.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My understanding is that ardupilot does their releases from Europe
>>>>>> specifically to avoid potential ITAR violations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ITAR is fairly heavily used to restrict aerospace and space systems
>>>>>> work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SpaceGambit for instance being Darpa funded cannot escape ITAR
>>>>>> restrictions.  Which severely limits what they can do and with whom ( IE
>>>>>> non US citizens ).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In Cody's case, he is a lot more vocal about being a rebellious
>>>>>> hellion than he actually is.  The man is very good at dotting 'i's and
>>>>>> crossing 't's.  The DoD ITAR transgressions aren't proven and the DoD
>>>>>> simply requested they formalize any classification of the specified CAD
>>>>>> work.  Most of those were fairly esoteric... including designs for a tank
>>>>>> shell, an adapter for an oil can silencer, and the liberator.  The
>>>>>> liberator is most likely not covered by ITAR.  The tank shell probably is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But yes.  ITAR is real.  We are all required to adhere to it in the
>>>>>> US.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Matt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Tom Igoe <t.igoe at arduino.cc> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a pretty good understanding of his tactics, I've been through
>>>>>>> a number of interviews and articles, and seen similar patterns before. I
>>>>>>> just think they are ill-advised. He's got two controversial topics in his
>>>>>>> actions:  weapons reform, and intellectual property reform. By doing what
>>>>>>> he's doing, he's tied the two together in many people's minds.  So now
>>>>>>> those same people will be less receptive to the idea that intellectual
>>>>>>> property regulation on its own is worth discussing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cody's chosen to take a radical stance. That's fine, but the
>>>>>>> consequence of that choose is that you alienate more people than you do
>>>>>>> than by taking a collaborative stance. He's got to live with that
>>>>>>> consequence, and unfortunately, now so do those of us who share his
>>>>>>> feelings about intellectual property reform.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> t.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 10, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Will Canine <willcanine at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think that Wilson's point is that regulation can't stop the
>>>>>>> dispersion of disruptive designs via the Internet; he is not really looking
>>>>>>> for a waver or exemption or anything like that. His point is that now it's
>>>>>>> started, it can't be stopped, regulation be damned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm as uninterested in guns as anyone here, but I do think it's
>>>>>>> worth looking at what he is doing more closely -- his tactics are worth
>>>>>>> learning from at the very least.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On May 10, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Tom Igoe <tom.igoe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd have to agree, Malcolm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> malcolm stanley <a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My experience with Export Control for encryption technologies used
>>>>>>>> in consumer devices, instantiated as DRM solutions for Video on Demand
>>>>>>>> movies, suggests to me that the exception being sought is somewhat ...
>>>>>>>> unrealistic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Weaponization of any technology is probably a poor strategy for
>>>>>>>> accomplishing the acheivement of a waiver from regulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _________________________________________
>>>>>>>> malcolm stanley
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> google.voice:  215.821.6252
>>>>>>>> Cell: 267.251.9479   <------------- new
>>>>>>>> email: a.malcolm.stanley at gmail.com
>>>>>>>> twitter / linkedin: amstanley
>>>>>>>> Read my blog at http://soaringhorse.blogspot.com
>>>>>>>> _________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is a dilemma that's been building up for a while now. Open
>>>>>>>>> source is all about sharing ideas so that anyone who wants to build them,
>>>>>>>>> or build off of them, can do so. Export control is a legal regime that
>>>>>>>>> makes sharing of certain ideas with non-authorized entities a federal crime.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Those of you who were at the hardware documentation jam might
>>>>>>>>> remember the subject of legal constraints coming up, but at the time I
>>>>>>>>> didn't have a good example.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would seem that we now have our test case. The State Department
>>>>>>>>> has ordered Defense Distributed to stop that whole "sharing guns" thing
>>>>>>>>> while they review whether or not making them internationally available
>>>>>>>>> violates International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/09/state-department-demands-takedown-of-3d-printable-gun-for-possible-export-control-violation/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cody Wilson, a law student, says that what he's doing falls into a
>>>>>>>>> protected exception for non-profit public domain research. His argument is
>>>>>>>>> that the files are "stored in a library" in the sense that all libraries
>>>>>>>>> have internet access and there is a single bookstore in Austin providing
>>>>>>>>> the published plans.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Getting any kind of official exception to export control for open
>>>>>>>>> source technology development would be a huge win. It would pave the way
>>>>>>>>> for much more ambitious projects.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Matt
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
>> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20130510/db6109fb/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list