Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Civil Liberties
Showing Original Post only (View all)EFF: "Internet Publication of 3D Printing Files About Guns: Facts and What's at Stake" [View all]
Orignally posted at the Civil Liberties group:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/11682359
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/08/internet-publication-3d-printing-files-about-guns-facts-and-whats-stake
Our government has a history of characterizing information (like encryption technology) and ideas (like socialism or Islam) as dangerous and likely to lead to violence. A free society cannot give the government unbridled discretion to make those choices, because of the systematic oppression that such a government can engage in...
...Its dangerous for the Executive Branch to have so much control over the publics right to share information online. Without meaningful restrictions on how and when the State Department can exercise its power, the risk of politically motivated censorship is extremely high.
In absence of laws dictating when the government can and cant use this power, politically motivated censorship is unavoidable. As EFF argued in our amicus brief, echoing concerns raised by the Supreme Court, Human nature creates an unacceptably high risk that excessive discretion will be used unconstitutionally, and such violations would be very difficult to prove on a case-by-case basis. Under the same law, the government could try to bar activists from sharing instructions for treating the effects of tear gas and other chemical weapons, or researchers from spreading information about the governments use of mass surveillance tools.
Or it could bar technologists from publishing the encryption technologies that we all use to protect ourselves from criminals online. In the 1990s, EFF successfully argued that it was unconstitutional for the government to use these export regulations to ban the online distribution of computer code used for effective encryption. Two decades later, the government has again used this unconstitutional export control regime in a way that gives it broad control over who can share information about a wide range of technologies online, with no safeguards ensuring that it doesnt ban certain speakers for political reasons...
...Its dangerous for the Executive Branch to have so much control over the publics right to share information online. Without meaningful restrictions on how and when the State Department can exercise its power, the risk of politically motivated censorship is extremely high.
In absence of laws dictating when the government can and cant use this power, politically motivated censorship is unavoidable. As EFF argued in our amicus brief, echoing concerns raised by the Supreme Court, Human nature creates an unacceptably high risk that excessive discretion will be used unconstitutionally, and such violations would be very difficult to prove on a case-by-case basis. Under the same law, the government could try to bar activists from sharing instructions for treating the effects of tear gas and other chemical weapons, or researchers from spreading information about the governments use of mass surveillance tools.
Or it could bar technologists from publishing the encryption technologies that we all use to protect ourselves from criminals online. In the 1990s, EFF successfully argued that it was unconstitutional for the government to use these export regulations to ban the online distribution of computer code used for effective encryption. Two decades later, the government has again used this unconstitutional export control regime in a way that gives it broad control over who can share information about a wide range of technologies online, with no safeguards ensuring that it doesnt ban certain speakers for political reasons...
Or ban 'information on how to obtain abortions', or 'how to make misoprostol without a prescription',
or 'how to protect ones' self and loved ones from ICE'...
Don't get me wrong, Cody Wilson is a sociopathic, vile human being- but as someone once said, "Free speech is for assholes"
17 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

EFF: "Internet Publication of 3D Printing Files About Guns: Facts and What's at Stake" [View all]
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2018
OP
"it could bar technologists from publishing the encryption technologies" - they actually tried...
PoliticAverse
Aug 2018
#1
And the same thing that happened then is happening now: Mirror sites galore
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2018
#2
He reminds me of a more tech oriented David Koresh, or a better-socialized Charles Manson...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2018
#9
As EFF pointed out, trying to stop him will cause a hell of a lot of collateral damage...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2018
#11
Homemade guns can be (and already have been) made, as see the link below
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2018
#14
There have always been racists, cancer, greedy people, etc. Doesn't make it right. I'm sure most
Hoyt
Aug 2018
#15
"Imagine being able to print a gun that gets through detectors." Such guns don't exist...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2018
#13
They actually do if you leave out the metal plate, but keep supporting homemade guns to go
Hoyt
Aug 2018
#16
Stop deliberately misrepresenting what I've said. Also, I own no guns of any sort.
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2018
#17
regulations on ITAR compliance, munitions licenses, classified information... are so ridiculous...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Aug 2018
#8