artyom comments on Researchers embed digital 'fingerprints' into 3D printed parts — tech may make future ghost guns more traceable

[–] artyom@piefed.social 36 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Details on exactly how this is done are scarce, with Raviv saying it's accomplished through "mathematical contributions and new security mechanisms."

Sounds like a load of nonsense. They'd have to somehow get this code into your slicer.

permalink

fedilink

source

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] LesserAbe@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

2d printers already print yellow dots which contain information about the printer for tracking purposes.

The question isn't whether a manufacturer would play ball (or be compelled to) it's whether it's possible to do in a way where the information persists and doesn't compromise the functionality of the print.

I think it's bad, to be clear. I just think it's not unreasonable to imagine manufacturers including that capability from the factory.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Except 3d printing has a much bigger open source community than 2d printers have.

There's already software out there that can optimize the output file of a slicer - effectively rewriting the gcode. Removing any watermarks at the code level seems pretty trivial, even if every single slicer company relented and added this function

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

Presumably this would be handled by the printer firmware and just slightly change the extrusion rate, regardless of the gcode.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] knightly@pawb.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

Easily solved by using open-source firmware.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago

That's true, and that also goes for printers. However most people will use it out-of-the-box. The people who want to avoid tracking, yeah, this won't do shit.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Eldritch@piefed.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

And it all could be circumvented by sanding and just using the part to make molds for resin etc.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] NOPper@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 year ago

Fuzzy skin, ironing, compile your own firmware, swap mainboards...this is a pointless solution that can only result in worse parts for the least technical users.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[+] zipsglacier@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

[deleted]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

So if anyone anneals their part, this fingerprint goes away.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Also these are still made of petrochemicals and thus easily incinerated during disposal

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 point 1 year ago

Seems similar to 2D printers. It shouldn't be that hard honestly. Sure, it's probably very prone to errors, but if it repeats over the entire print then the errors should average out.