GoKawiilCalifornia's proposed legislation to put the burden of blocking 3D-printed firearms onto printer manufacturers could effectively sideline open source tools and create new surveillance concerns, digital rights activists argue.
Advocates at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) say that such legislation could empower manufacturers to introduce restrictive policies affecting consumer choice. It could lead to widespread surveillance of users' printing activity, which they fear could lead to copyright lawsuits, if that data were shared with other companies looking to protect against 3D-printed spare parts, for example.
The bill in question is AB 2047, the scope of which, on paper, appears strict. The primary goal is clear and simple: to require 3D printer manufacturers to use a state-certified algorithm that checks digital design files for firearm components and blocks print jobs that would produce prohibited parts.
Federal law does not impose a blanket ban on making firearms for personal use, though ghost guns are subject to various federal and state restrictions, and the practice remains controversial nationwide.
Gun crime rates in the US far outweigh those in all other developed countries, so introducing legislation to curb the easy manufacture of untraceable firearms will be seen as a positive initiative to many, particularly in regions where guns are more strictly regulated.
However, Cliff Braun and Rory Mir, who respectively work in policy and tech community engagement at the EFF, claim that the proposals in California are technically infeasible and in practice will lead to consumer surveillance.
In a series of blog posts published this month, the pair argued that print-blocking technology - proposals for which have also surfaced in states including New York and Washington - cannot work for a range of technical reasons.
They argued that because 3D printers and other types of computer numerical control (CNC) machines are fairly simple, with much of their brains coming from the computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) software – or slicer software – to which they are linked, the bill would establish legal and illegal software. Proprietary software will likely become the de facto option, leaving open source alternatives to rot.
"Under these proposed laws, manufacturers of consumer 3D printers must ensure their printers only work with their software, and implement firearm detection algorithms on either the printer itself or in a slicer software," wrote Braun earlier this month.
"These algorithms must detect firearm files using a maintained database of existing models. Vendors of printers must then verify that printers are on the allow-list maintained by the state before they can offer them for sale.
... continue reading