all 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 76 points 1 year ago

Luckily we have open source firmware and we can build our own printers.

Most ghost guns are not 3D printed so this is nothing but security theater and an invasion of privacy.

  • source
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Given the diy-nature of almost every 3d printer, I can't see this being very useful for identifying prints.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Exactly my thoughts. I got my machine in 2017 and have replaced enough parts to make a ship of Theseus argument. Most of them weren't even due to wear, I just like rebuilding her. On top of that, every other printer I know is either all diy or kit built. I can't imagine this will stop anyone who genuinely wants to do harm.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    This.

    My first and only 3D printer to this day is an Ender 5.

    But that Ender 5 is now partially converted to a ZeroG Mercury and the only thing that will be left original at the end will be the frame and some screws.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] [S] 27 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    So when I turn on variable layer height this whole thing goes out the window. Or if I post process and sand the parts. Oh I know what if I use a slicer and firmware like klipper to bypass everything. No 3d printer that isn't locked down already by closed ecosystem will never have this "code" in the parts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Sand paper wouldn't really help. They could just cut a part in half. But yeah no way in hell this will ever end up in any of the open source printer firmwares. So it's a moot point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    This has to be borderline useless as a positive identification tool, given that people can...

    1. Make their own models
    2. Run open source slicing software
    3. Inspect their own gcode
    4. Print from flashcard on a 100% offline printer with known clean firmware, such as the most common Ender 3.

    How about they just focus on other methods of apprehending violent criminals and leave hobbyists alone.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    you know how easy it is to circumvent this?

    relatively easy, its relatively easy. now you know.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Okay so if I want to print a gun I'll just tighten an eccentric nut or belt tensioner. Lol

  • source
  • 31 comments in c/hardware@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 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.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 28 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    I can see where the is going. In the future sanding your 3d part will be tantamount to removing the serial number on a gun.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I assume they add a custom wiggle to the print head so the "serial" is embedded into the plastic everywhere inside and out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Exactly. So if that wiggle gets sanded off you have effectively anonymized your part

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] [S] -11 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    If the 3D part was used to make a gun, isn't this a fair approach?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Why should I be prevented from manufacturing my own firearms? Gunsmithing is a perfectly legal hobby and I don't understand why new technology needs to change the laws. Just continue enforcing the manufacture of and sale of illegal weapons. My 20g shotgun had a little plastic bit crumble in the hard grip, should it have been illegal for me to 3d print it's replacement because it was involved in the manufacturing of a firearm?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] [S] -6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Not all countries allow open ownership of weaponry. Most don't allow this kind of stuff.

    I am most definitely opposed to randoms making modifications to their weapons even if they have licensing to own a firearms.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Impossible to deploy unless they force you to use their own slicer.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This would maybe make it a bit harder, but not by that much. Couldn't one just use the sanded-off 3D printed part as a template for a mould?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Guy at the home depot.... Is there any wroth iron pipe smaller than half inch available? And do you have it chrome plated?

    Seriously 3D printing is overrated.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Do a gun whopsie. Pop it into a handy disposable fire.

  • source