Lucille
03-17-2013, 01:39 PM
Defense Distributed Gets License To Manufacture Firearms
http://reason.com/24-7/2013/03/17/defense-distributed-gets-license-to-manu
Defense Distributed, the organization set up to explore the use of 3D printers for decentralized production of firearms so that their ownership can be put further beyond the reach of government, has acquired a license to manufacture firearms. The license will ease the group's efforts to develop workable plans that can then be distributed online to end users who have access to 3D printers. In particular, Defense Distributed will be able to sell some of the guns it makes to gain additional financing for its efforts.
Which should please Sen. Dianne Feinstein to no end.
http://defdist.tumblr.com/post/45518261147/opened
Cornered by DEFCAD (http://defcad.com/) and the prospect of Liberty, The New York Times publicly abandons the word “Open (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html?_r=1&).”
[...]
Meanwhile, look who has a license to manufacture firearms:
http://media.tumblr.com/9718912d27a40188aa4d4ab590adc097/tumblr_inline_mjrpflidkp1qz4rgp.jpg
NYT:
“CAN 3D printing be subversive?” asks a voice in the creepiest Internet video you’ll be likely to watch this month. It’s a trailer for Defcad.com, a search engine for 3D-printable designs for things “institutions and industries have an interest in keeping from us,” including “medical devices, drugs, goods, guns.”
The voice belongs to Cody Wilson, a law student in Texas who last year founded Defense Distributed, a controversial initiative to produce a printable “wiki weapon.” With Defcad, he is expanding beyond guns, allowing, say, drone enthusiasts to search for printable parts.
Mr. Wilson plays up Defcad’s commitment to “openness,” the latest opiate of the (iPad-toting) masses. Not only would Defcad’s search engine embrace “open source” — the three-minute trailer says so twice — but it would also feature “open data.” With so much openness, Defcad can’t possibly be evil, right?
[...]
Will “openness” win, as the digital Pollyannas assure us? It well might. But a victory for “openness” might also signify defeat for democratic politics, ambitious policy reform and much else. Perhaps we should impose a moratorium on the very word “open.” Just imagine the possibilities this could open up!
http://reason.com/24-7/2013/03/17/defense-distributed-gets-license-to-manu
Defense Distributed, the organization set up to explore the use of 3D printers for decentralized production of firearms so that their ownership can be put further beyond the reach of government, has acquired a license to manufacture firearms. The license will ease the group's efforts to develop workable plans that can then be distributed online to end users who have access to 3D printers. In particular, Defense Distributed will be able to sell some of the guns it makes to gain additional financing for its efforts.
Which should please Sen. Dianne Feinstein to no end.
http://defdist.tumblr.com/post/45518261147/opened
Cornered by DEFCAD (http://defcad.com/) and the prospect of Liberty, The New York Times publicly abandons the word “Open (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html?_r=1&).”
[...]
Meanwhile, look who has a license to manufacture firearms:
http://media.tumblr.com/9718912d27a40188aa4d4ab590adc097/tumblr_inline_mjrpflidkp1qz4rgp.jpg
NYT:
“CAN 3D printing be subversive?” asks a voice in the creepiest Internet video you’ll be likely to watch this month. It’s a trailer for Defcad.com, a search engine for 3D-printable designs for things “institutions and industries have an interest in keeping from us,” including “medical devices, drugs, goods, guns.”
The voice belongs to Cody Wilson, a law student in Texas who last year founded Defense Distributed, a controversial initiative to produce a printable “wiki weapon.” With Defcad, he is expanding beyond guns, allowing, say, drone enthusiasts to search for printable parts.
Mr. Wilson plays up Defcad’s commitment to “openness,” the latest opiate of the (iPad-toting) masses. Not only would Defcad’s search engine embrace “open source” — the three-minute trailer says so twice — but it would also feature “open data.” With so much openness, Defcad can’t possibly be evil, right?
[...]
Will “openness” win, as the digital Pollyannas assure us? It well might. But a victory for “openness” might also signify defeat for democratic politics, ambitious policy reform and much else. Perhaps we should impose a moratorium on the very word “open.” Just imagine the possibilities this could open up!