[Discuss] Reactions to Defense Distributed?

Fri Nov 1 18:24:49 UTC 2013

Thanks Matt, excellent take on this issue!

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Matt Maier <blueback09 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Here's the stuff I wrote about it at the time.
>
> http://openalia.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/defense-distributed-had-their-stratasys-3d-printer-taken-away/
>
> https://openalia.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/wikiweapons-to-print-a-gun-or-not/
>
> It parallels Alicia and Michael's general impression that 3D printing
> guns is not the game-changer some people perceive it to be. My
> impression is that the open/maker community thinks it's more
> interesting as a potential stimulus for unnecessary regulation than
> anything else. People less familiar with the technology downplay the
> inherent complexity of additive manufacturing and assume it's magical.
> I wouldn't be the first person to point out that it's actually far
> easier to make a gun out of $10 worth of hardware store parts than a
> 3D printer. The danger of guns has always been in the bullets anyway,
> not in the gun mechanism itself.
>
> By way of some analysis, I think the open source community is
> primarily motivated by a desire to find the best technical solution to
> any given problem. Good technical solutions are inherently amoral;
> they can be used for good or evil. I also think open source is based
> on the principle that you aren't allowed to control what anyone else
> does with your work. So I think the community is founded on an
> implicit assumption that releasing a new, uncontrolled tool into the
> world will produce far more good than bad.
>
> For example, my first blog interview was with some guys who made an
> open source squib firing system for visual effects.
>
> http://openalia.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/the-firecrow-squib-firing-system-an-interview-with-the-creators/
> What they created is, effectively, an easy to afford, easy to make,
> and easy to hide radio control system for bombs. Their bombs are small
> ones used for movies. There's no technial reason the same system
> couldn't set off large bombs for other purposes. But when asked about
> their philosophy, they didn't think that any hypothetical dangers from
> misuse were worthy of comment. They just thought open source was a
> good idea in general.
>
> So I don't expect the bulk of the community to ever be interested in
> hardware that is primarily intended to be a weapon, but I also don't
> expect the bulk of the community to be bothered when a minority
> inevitably does focus on weapons. Whether or not something is
> dangerous has a lot more to do with the intention (malice) and
> capability (incompetence) of the user than in the hardware itself. The
> open source community, by definition, restrains itself from exercising
> any control over who uses their work, regardless of intentions and
> capabilities.
>
> -Matt
>
> On 10/31/13, Michael Weinberg <mweinberg at publicknowledge.org> wrote:
> > It may (or may not) be relevant to keep in mind the history that occurred
> > before Cody's project.  The first 3D printed gun upload by HaveBlue was
> > built upon work by the CNCGuns.com community.  This community, which was
> > new to me but has been around for some time, had long made available
> files
> > that could be downloaded, put into a machine, and turned into a (metal)
> > gun.  So, while DD got a lot of attention, it raised a lot fewer
> > policy/legal questions than initially appeared.
> >
> > Or at least that's what we have been telling all of the lawmakers that we
> > met with since the first stories broke.
> >
> > For what it's worth,
> > here<
> http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/3d-printing-guns-and-dealing-new-uses
> >'s
> > the blog post version of our messaging to lawmakers.  I know it isn't
> > exactly what you are looking for, but it is a response that has resonated
> > reasonably well with people who might try to regulate 3D printing.  So it
> > might possibly be a helpful data point.
> >
> > -michael
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:06 PM, alicia <amgibb at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> There's a hackaday article, which fits somewhat into those categories,
> >> maybe more of a hacker community, but I think it's what you're getting
> >> at:
> >>
> >>
> http://hackaday.com/2013/05/06/the-first-3d-printed-gun-has-been-fired-and-i-dont-care/
> >> But that's the only one I can think of from the hacker/maker community.
> >>
> >> My personal opinion is tech can be used for good and evil as cited by
> >> Technological
> >> determinism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_determinism>
> and
> >> Neil
> >> Postman <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Postman>, which you've
> >> probably already read :)
> >>
> >> Alicia
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Catarina Mota
> >> <catarinamfmota at gmail.com>wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I'm trying to take a deeper look at the open source, 3D printable
> >>> weapons
> >>> issue. Although I found many videos and articles about Defense
> >>> Distributed,
> >>> I haven't been able to find any comments or reactions from the open
> >>> source
> >>> / maker community. Does anyone know of any public reactions or comments
> >>> on
> >>> this topic?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Catarina
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Michael Weinberg, Vice President, PK Thinks
> > 202-861-0020 (o) | @mweinbergPK
> >
> > Public Knowledge | @publicknowledge | www.publicknowledge.org
> > 1818 N St. NW, Suite 410 | Washington, DC 20036
> >
> > Promoting a Creative & Connected Future.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131101/87b29ae2/attachment-0001.html>