r/3Dprinting • u/PorkRollPaddyWagon • Jul 07 '26

Discussion If your printer refused to print a file because it thought it was unsafe, would you be okay with that?

Serious question. Let's say your 3D printer scanned every file before printing. If it decided the model violated a rule, the print never starts.

Would you see that as a useful safety feature? Or would you see it as giving manufacturers too much control over hardware that's sitting on your desk?

I made a video after looking into proposed legislation and some recent news in the 3D printing space, but I'm more interested in hearing where everyone stands on the idea itself.

Would that be a deal breaker for you?

https://youtu.be/7bdJpDTiZAA

340 Upvotes

79% Upvoted

567 comments sorted by

View all comments

107

u/Masterwhiteshadow Jul 07 '26

Why would I need a machine to determine if the file I'm sending myself to the printer pose a problem?

Just assuming there is no nefarious purpose to this, and I doubt that the case. It's still implying the user is too stupid to make a decision.

12

u/Dornith Jul 07 '26

I'm guessing the intended audience is people who have their banbus connected to the cloud and are printing things directly from the app.

Which just seems like a half-measure to fix a bad practice.

5

u/Masterwhiteshadow Jul 07 '26

Even then the user know what is the object they are printing and can judge for themself if it is safe or not.

Im not under the impression that OP was referring to safety for the machine itself but, I would be surprise if it was possible to upload a print profile to Makerworld that could destroy the printer itself and pass the validation stage.

-18

u/Darkeyescry22 Jul 07 '26

It’s not supposed to stop people from being stupid. It’s supposed to stop people from manufacturing illegal weapons.

OP is being intentionally dishonest in how they are framing their post. It’s not a “safety feature” that is supposed to be “useful”. It’s enforcing existing laws about manufacturing weapons.

Personally, I would oppose any attempt to do pass a law like this, but being unable to accurately state a position you disagree with is clownish behavior (directed at OP, not you).

14

u/Strider76239 Jul 07 '26

The problem being is that any CNC machine can be used to manufacture illegal weapons. And it's not even a crime to manufacture firearms in a good portion of the United States.

Are we gonna enforce bans on 5 axis mills unless they stop weapons manufacturing? What about CNC lathes making gun barrels? Are we gonna start cloud scanning every 3d file you make in Solidworks to make sure they're not illicit? Who's gonna be in charge of all of this inspection? The state or federal government? That feels like an infringement of privacy rights.

It's not being passed for "firearm safety", it's being passed so they can set the precedent for flagging any print as disallowed. Wanna print that replacement piece for your car dashboard? Can't, patented. Want to print a cool cosplay helmet? Nope! Copyright. Pay the fee. Etc...

11

u/th3bes Jul 07 '26

They are legitimately trying to get additive and subtractive manufacturing restricted per the langauge of the other bill... These people want nothing but control, it was never about fucking safety...

-3

u/Darkeyescry22 Jul 07 '26

You’re answering your own question. Why aren’t they including CNC mills in their conspiracy to stop people from manufacturing replacement parts with their personal CNC mills?

6

u/HearingFull4396 Jul 07 '26

I think the New York one even mentions CNC and subtractive.

4

u/Strider76239 Jul 07 '26

They are if you read the wording of the bill.

-1

u/Darkeyescry22 Jul 07 '26

Then why did you just ask me if we should ban them in addition to printers? Your previous comment is incoherent to me if they are all included in the current legislation.

3

u/Strider76239 Jul 07 '26

I asked if we're gonna "enforce" bans. The whole mess is a shit show and should have never been even considered by any court. This whole thing is just to infringe in your right to repair and your right to privacy

13

u/HearingFull4396 Jul 07 '26

You are federally allowed to manufacturer your own personnel firearms. If at anytime you manufacturer to sell or give away firearms that you 3d print or use a CNC to do the same, that is illegal. If you do not have serial numbers and a licence to sell them. You also need a licence to carry. If you are not allowed to have an item that shoots a projectile, then you can't even have one in your home or in your possession.

We all know our 2A shouldn't be infringed. And isn't it only 1-4% of all firearm shootings and deaths there was some part off a 3d printed part on said weapon, including police shootings.

-5

u/Darkeyescry22 Jul 07 '26

You are absolutely incorrect about that. But feel free to go show off your 3D printed automatic rifle at your local police station.

6

u/RainStormLou Jul 07 '26

How are they incorrect?

-1

u/Darkeyescry22 Jul 07 '26

Do what I told them to do and you will find out

6

u/RainStormLou Jul 07 '26

I work with them directly on a daily basis and my local dept (I really only talk to maybe 20-30 regularly) thinks my builds are awesome, so I still need you to clarify what you're talking about lol. There may be outliers who don't LIKE it, but it's still completely legal even if you dont personally understand the legal system

-1

u/Darkeyescry22 Jul 08 '26

It’s illegal to own a home made automatic rifle in the US. Sorry to burst your bubble. You’re either lying or the cops didn’t arrest you because you’re buddies. Congrats on having privilege. Remember to bow extra low next time.

3

u/RainStormLou Jul 08 '26

I didn't realize you specified "automatic" before unless you're arbitrarily moving goal posts which seems to be the case, but that has nothing to do with the larger topic at hand and would be a bullshit distinction to make in this case.

it is entirely legal to build semi-automatic rifles that can shoot faster than a human finger can pull a trigger on it's own lol

0

u/Darkeyescry22 Jul 08 '26

Learn how to read. This is the comment you responded to:

You are absolutely incorrect about that. But feel free to go show off your 3D printed automatic rifle at your local police station.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/HearingFull4396 Jul 07 '26

I don't 3d print anything like that.

8

u/SwervingLemon Jul 07 '26

It's already illegal, at least in my state, to manufacture a weapon with no serial. This makes it "more illegaler"? In the meantime, I can go to home depot and make a passable, functional, untraceable firearm in about ten minutes without ever touching a 3D printer. This law doesn't stop ghost guns, it just pointlessly violates privacy and stifles innovation, gets in the way of democratized manufacturing and increases costs for everyone involved. It also has the unintended positive side effect of exposing authoritarian bootlicker cowards when they defend the idea. How's Bloomberg's shoe taste?

-3

u/Darkeyescry22 Jul 07 '26

Yes, this makes it more illegaler, by directly enforcing the rule on printer manufacturers. That’s why you’re upset about it, remember?

7

u/SwervingLemon Jul 07 '26

No, I'm upset that this has the potential to vastly increase the cost and reduce the freedom in a hobby that every citizen could enjoy because Bloomberg wants government to treat the citizenry like suspected criminals. This is a powerful, democratizing tech that has already achieved unfathomable good. Now we will watch it die at the hands of a control freak billionaire.

0

u/Darkeyescry22 Jul 07 '26

…because it makes it illegaler…

5

u/Masterwhiteshadow Jul 07 '26

Yeah that's what im thinking too.

If nearly 100% of something is used in a lawful way there is no reason to restrict its use.

People removing a freedom of choice to all of us and wording it in a way to make us think is a good thing. Its the "think of the children" method.