Defense Distributed, et al

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

raimius

New member
So, the DoJ made a settlement with Defense Distributed, dropping their attempts to ban design files for 3D printed firearms (at least the "not inherently military" kind.)
Recently, a federal judge placed a stay on that settlement, keeping the restrictions against publishing the designs...from what I've read. Can anyone explain how/why/what legal mechanism the judge is using to determine ITAR rules for the government body that is supposed to do that, and why the judge has that power? ...or is it based on different legislation?
 
First point, a "stay" is supposed to be just that, a TEMPORARY hold on something until some legal issue is resolved. It may actually last years, but its not a permanent prohibition.

Second, I have no idea what the judge is using for his reasoning, and in practical terms it doesn't matter, as what ever his ruling is will stand until/unless another judge with higher authority overrules it.

Of course a judge should have some legal reason, but they can rule on something just because "the sky is blue today" and it will stand until the legal challenge process runs it course.
 
I heard a brief blurb on talk radio yesterday but didn't get the whole context. They were talking about publishing such designs on the open internet in the context of copyright infringement issues. So, maybe that's the angle of the judge who issued the stay???
 
The whole thing

The entire situation with regard to the files for 3D printing is downright silly.

The genie is out of the bottle for heavens sake.

Like the emperor the genie has no clothes.
 
So........ Defense Distributed in enjoined from distributing the files.

Oh wait, the files in question have been downloaded millions of times already.

Oh wait, the same files are available on *numerous* sites as we speak.
 
So........ Defense Distributed in enjoined from distributing the files.
Click to expand...

Again!

Oh wait, the files in question have been downloaded millions of times already.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter.


Oh wait, the same files are available on *numerous* sites as we speak.
Click to expand...

Also doesn't matter!

As I understand the matter, the entire thing is about 1st Amendment rights (free speech) and just happens to involve 2nd Amendment items (firearms) and the one(s?) in this specific case are 3D-printed. The legal issue isn't about plastic guns, or even 3D printed guns (that is a red herring) it is about international distribution (the internet) of firearms (and firearms technology, including plans) without the Government's permission.

How many times the files were downloaded before the government ordered Defense Distributed to stop doing it doesn't matter.

Also how many other places one can get the information doesn't matter to the case, directly, either.

And it seems that DD "won" their case (by reaching a settlement) and that the day before they were going to resume putting their plans on the Internet, a judge issued a stay order, preventing them from doing so, for reasons that are not clear at this time.

SO, it seems that, even if you win your case against the govt, the govt will still stop you from doing what it doesn't like, by other means....

The root cause of the issues seems to be a zealous and over broad interpretation of ITAR regulations.
 
If the government has already settled with them who is bringing the case ? Individual states ? Individual persons ?

Recently, a federal judge placed a stay on that settlement, keeping the restrictions against publishing the designs.
Click to expand...

How did it get to his/her courtroom ?
 
From what I've read, it was state AGs who brought it before the court, but why a state AG would get involved in ITAR is beyond me... which is part of why I asked.
 
raimius said:
From what I've read, it was state AGs who brought it before the court, but why a state AG would get involved in ITAR is beyond me... which is part of why I asked.
Click to expand...
Because (1) they hate and fear "assault weapons; (2) they don't really understand that you can't create a functional, reliable firearm capable of killing hundreds of people on a home 3-D printer; and (3) they hate and fear "assault weapons.

They don't care about ITAR. They don't want US to be able to download those files.
 
As I understand the matter, the entire thing is about 1st Amendment rights (free speech) and just happens to involve 2nd Amendment items (firearms) and the one(s?) in this specific case are 3D-printed. The legal issue isn't about plastic guns, or even 3D printed guns (that is a red herring) it is about international distribution (the internet) of firearms (and firearms technology, including plans) without the Government's permission.
Click to expand...

This makes sense to me.

The thing I don't understand is that ITAR has a public domain restriction...they can't restrict things that have already been in the public domain (like engineering knowledge) even if they think those things are dangerous, etc. Old information (1911 specs, AR specs, etc) being posted on the internet for some years is about the most public of public domains I can imagine. Seems odd that a judge would miss this, or maybe I'm just misconstruing it.

There's also the whole "export" definition. Export has a pretty specific meaning, and afaik that meaning has nothing to do with the internet. So is this some new power the judge just granted ITAR out of thin air?

Then, if we say that ITAR has some ability to take what you're going to publish on the internet and censor it, isn't that a prior restraint on free speech?

Maybe none of these things matter because it was just a ruling that an injunction can continue, not an actual case on the merits.

From what I've read, it was state AGs who brought it before the court, but why a state AG would get involved in ITAR is beyond me... which is part of why I asked.
Click to expand...

I suppose they represent their states, and if their states feel they could be harmed by these files being available on this particular website, then the supposition that they might be harmed gives them standing to at least ask the court for protection?

Of course it's ridiculous, the files have never not been available elsewhere on the internet (therefore everywhere), so the addition or subtraction of one website doesn't change a thing, so what relief could the court grant them?
 
It may not matter to the case, but just as happened with PGP years ago, the cat has gotten out of the bag, she had kittens, the kittens have shredded the bag, and that makes arguments over how to get her back in that bag a bit moot.

The Kittens at CodeIsFreeSpeech.com won't be stopped by any judge.
 
PGP?

Please translate.
Click to expand...

PGP was software to encrypt your email. Uncle couldn't crack it. They were forcing the programmer(s) to put in a back door so they could. They finally did put in a back door but the original version was still all over the internet.

PGP ( Pretty Good Protection )
 
Aguila Blanca said:
Does OpenPGP ( https://www.openpgp.org/ ) have a back door built in?
Click to expand...

It sort of can't....Open PGP is a standard (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880), not an implementation. The standard describes how to build something, like a recipe you might follow in the kitchen. A recipe can't give you food sickness (directly)...although I suppose an irresponsible recipe might consistently yield products which put you at high risk. It could be argued that the standard linked above has some weakness which, when followed properly, yields a backdoor, but that is speculation, since many independent security organizations hammer away at Open PGP-based implementations regularly, and have never found such a thing....and there is a strong motivation to find security holes...a researcher who found a back door in the Open PGP standard would immediately secure his/her reputation as a security guru, and make a great deal of money.

An Open PGP-compliant implementation, such as GPG, can be at risk. If you are concerned about your chosen implementation having a back door, you can read the source code for yourself, if your chosen implementation makes it's source code available to you.
 
Last edited:
vicGT said:
It sort of can't....Open PGP is a standard (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880), not an implementation. The standard describes how to build something, like a recipe you might follow in the kitchen. A recipe can't give you food sickness (directly)...although I suppose an irresponsible recipe might consistently yield products which put you at high risk. It could be argued that the standard linked above has some weakness which, when followed properly, yields a backdoor, but that is speculation, since many independent security organizations hammer away at Open PGP-based implementations regularly, and have never found such a thing...
Click to expand...


I knew Phil Zimmerman when he developed PGP and announced it at Crypto ‘92 in the rump session and followed his export drama closely. I don’t believe he knowingly would have ever put a back door in it.

However, “open” or “standard” doesn’t mean there isn’t a backdoor.

Then there was RSA, the de facto key exchange PGP used, was ‘allegedly” caught putting suspicious code / a hint in their algorithm.

So what might look innocent to the Internet security crowd after years of investigation might actually be nothing, a debug port for developers or an open barn door to entities with substantial resources and can solve a very obscure math problem thought to be intractable.
 
PGP stands for Pretty Good Privacy, Phil's way of letting users know that there's no Perfect Privacy.

Sorry for bringing it up without further reference. The story is very similar today.

Back then, I went to a website where I could (and did) push a button that sent a copy of PGP to a server in Anguilla. That was a felony at the time. I was proud to be one of the kittens shredding the bag.

I spent some time yesterday spreading CodeIsFreeSpeech.com around the internet, taking only a short break to post pics of Xi and Winnie the Pooh. Just let me know if there's something else that will annoy any censor anywhere in the world and I'll stop what I'm doing and spread it.
 
It was bound to happen.

You can get the Liberator code in a bound paper volume.

Hah!
Here is a book that you need to buy that many in the gun control industry would like to see banned. It is called The Liberator Code Book: An Exercise in Free Speech. The book is exactly what it says it is - the 3-D printing code for the Liberator pistol in book form. Think of the $15 cost of this book as a donation to the advancement of free speech.
Click to expand...

I just love kittens!
 
I guess they don't like kittens so much over at Amazon. The link is dead, the Liberator Code Book is banned from their market.

Instead of just buying one for myself, I'm thinking everyone on my Christmas list should get one this year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top