
Cody Wilson, Who Posted Gun Instructions Online, Sues State Department - jordanbaucke
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/us/cody-wilson-who-posted-gun-instructions-online-sues-state-department.html?_r=0
======
zaroth
> “I can’t think of anything quite analogous,” said Floyd Abrams, a noted
> First Amendment lawyer. “But on the face of it, it seems to me like a
> serious claim.”

Really? Sounds almost exactly how in the 90s restrictions were placed on
exporting cryptography, by placing strong software crypto on the US Munitions
List.

> Mr. Wilson, 27, claims he spent thousands of dollars over the next two years
> on lawyers who helped him file paperwork in an effort to comply with the
> regulations, which are known as ITAR.

"International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) The regulations control the
export and import of defense-related articles and services on the United
States Munitions List (USML)."

So why can't, just like with strong crypto, Mr. Wilson place his drawings
behind a web form where you certify that you are within the United States and
will not export the drawings?

~~~
dmix
> So why can't, just like with strong crypto, Mr. Wilson place his drawings
> behind a web form where you certify that you are within the United States
> and will not export the drawings?

Having read other articles about Cody he believes that all information should
be free, global, and non-censored. Similar to the cypherpunk philosophy. His
decision to use potentially dangerous information as an example of this idea
had the intended side-effected of drawing out ideological opponents. Such as
the media and regulators.

As a result, the public is now forced to seriously question the limits of free
flowing of information thanks to the internet/3d printing/decentralize file
sharing/etc. As we know from media piracy, attempting to suppress information
on the internet usually results in the opposite effect. Which is what happened
to Cody's files, tons of people reposted it all over the internet immediately
after the regulatory legal threat was issued.

Anyone could check that box saying they're American or use a VPN. Then
distribute the file via torrents. Which makes the whole regulatory process
seem like a public spectacle rather than an effective deterrent.

The crypto wars from the 1990s is certainly analogous.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I look forward to buying his books of printed G Code [1] which would build a
gun from scratch when OCR'd or typed back in.

This reminds me, I still have the PGP source book on my bookshelf.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-code](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-code)

~~~
bradleysmith
Where did you see any plans of his to publish g-code in hard-copy?

~~~
toomuchtodo
I didn't, but I'm assume he's familiar with the PGP debacle (and if he's not,
I just emailed him).

------
chroma
I think this specific suit is valid, but it does raise questions about where
the line should be drawn. With just a little creativity, it is _very_ easy to
build extremely dangerous weapons from off-the-shelf parts. I won't mention
anything specific, as some HN karma is not worth the slightest chance of these
weapons being used. I will mention one of my rejected ideas, as there is a
straightforward countermeasure: laser blinding devices. Powerful infrared
laser diodes are cheap, as are the optics and electronics to drive and focus
them. Such lasers are invisible and cause permanent damage faster than one can
blink. They have a range measured in kilometers, and they are small enough to
be mounted on consumer drones. Combine this with face recognition/tracking,
and you could permanently blind any target who dared to show themselves in
public.

Do you think someone who published the specifics (parts list, blueprints,
source code, etc) of such a device should be punished? I do, even though I
think there's an obvious countermeasure. Likewise, while Wilson's 3D-printed
gun is a toy, not everything publishable is so benign. Before we hop on the
train of free-speech idealism, we should realize how fortunate we are that
nobody has discovered a convenient world-ending weapon. Considering the amount
of energy pent-up in ordinary matter, we've been _incredibly_ lucky. SILEX[1]
came close, but thankfully its specifics have been kept secret. And had
physics turned out slightly differently, building a nuclear weapon could have
been as easy as putting sand in a microwave.[2]

As much as I hate to admit it, there is such a thing as dangerous information.
Until humanity becomes wiser, I think our only (terrible) option is to silence
people who try to spread it. Again, this specific case clearly falls under
free speech, but it's important to keep future discoveries in mind.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_isotopes_by_lase...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_isotopes_by_laser_excitation)

2\. This example was originally used by Nick Bostrom.

~~~
pakitan
> As much as I hate to admit it, there is such a thing as dangerous
> information

I do agree with you on that but the problem, as always, is who decides what's
dangerous information? What if I published the blueprint of a blinding drone
with the genuine intention of it being used against pests? Eventually you end
up with some bureaucrat ruining some kid's life just so he can climb a bit up
on the hierarchy ladder. And then there the issue of cost effectiveness.
Should we really waste resources on silencing people when it's so easy to
publish information anonymously?

~~~
mauricemir
Well Blinding weapons are banned by the Geneva convention use would be
considered a war crime.

~~~
talmand
While true, how would that begin to cover domestic use outside of warfare? I
didn't even think the current discussion was even covering warfare.

~~~
ams6110
Causing injury to another person is generally already illegal.

~~~
sukilot
The question isn't about causing injury. It is about possessing a device (or
even knowledge) _capable_ of harming someone.

------
trhway
it seems to be well established practice in the US that ITAR takes precedence
over the 1st in the well defined by ITAR cases - for example, due to ITAR,
Elon Musk just can't exercise his 1st by publishing Merlin's blueprints. The
same is here - if plastic handgun falls under ITAR - qua. If not - qua for the
State Department. It seems that instead of the 1st Amendment lawyer, here ITAR
specialist lawyer would be more useful.

Of course, if it is a clear ITAR item, then the fight for the priority of the
1st Amendment is a noble, yet most probably destined to fail, endeavor.

------
CHY872
Just as some additional information, being prosecuted for publishing the
blueprints to a very dangerous weapon is a textbook (as in, I read it in a
textbook) example of where it is generally believed that your right to free
speech does not provide a good defence.

Whether Wilson's ideas fall under this is probably arguable, but going on free
speech alone is sketchy, to say the least.

~~~
themartorana
Certainly not generally believed by anyone (including lawyers) I know. There's
not much to interpret in "...shall make no law..."

The problem, as stated everywhere around this post, is who draws the line,
considering the line is against the letter and spirit of the law. The whole
reason the clause "...shall make no law..." is there is because _any_ law is
self-serving to a group of people wishing to control another group.

While you may consider weapons speech to be over a line you have arbitrarily
drawn in the sand, this guy over here believes hate speech is a more dangerous
type of speech and would like to draw his own line.

Pretty soon the government considers anti-government speech to be "hate
speech" against the powers that be...

"No" law. Not "not many" laws.

~~~
CHY872
The supreme court has numerous times affirmed limits to free speech. For
example, the espionage act has been ruled constitutional. Military officers
are prohibited from releasing classified information. You're in trouble if you
call in a bomb threat.

You segue onto hate speech and drawing lines; this seems irrelevant here.

Were a Lockheed Martin worker to send the plans for the F-35 to China, they'd
be put in prison.

Were Intel transmit the designs for that supercomputer that Intel weren't
allowed to build in China to get around export regs, they'd be put in prison.

If it were the case that the constitution allowed the government to (say)
prohibit the exporting of certain military hardware (say, a nuclear bomb), but
not prohibiting the export of an incredibly detailed document explaining every
nuance, datum, etc of producing that same piece of military hardware, I'd
argue that the constitution needed a brief update (perhaps as you mention to
'shall make not many laws'). To my knowledge, it does not.

Then either this case will lead to failure, or success by arguing that any
export regs on ideas are unconstitutional (thus leading to the bizarre problem
above) or a success by proving that the export regs do not, or should not
cover what he has produced.

~~~
LordKano
_Were Intel transmit the designs for that supercomputer that Intel weren 't
allowed to build in China to get around export regs, they'd be put in prison._

If Intel were to publish detailed instructions for building this computer in a
book, there's no question that it would be protected by the first amendment.

~~~
CHY872
what if they were to not do that, and instead just email them privately (as
hypothesised)?

