Guy at the home depot… Is there any wroth iron pipe smaller than half inch available? And do you have it chrome plated?
Seriously 3D printing is overrated.
Details on exactly how this is done are scarce, with Raviv saying it’s accomplished through “mathematical contributions and new security mechanisms.”
Sounds like a load of nonsense. They’d have to somehow get this code into your slicer.
Here’s the paper where they explain it. Basically, they make subtle fluctuations in layer height, adding or subtracting small amounts that are not visible to the naked eye, to encode 0s and 1s. So, maybe in principle this could run at the firmware level on your printer. Then, someone can use a microscope to read off the code from pieces of the printed part.
I would have some doubts about how reliable this is, given the relatively large tolerances I fdm printing, but they have a section about that in the paper, so I guess they at least have thought about it.
So if anyone anneals their part, this fingerprint goes away.
Also these are still made of petrochemicals and thus easily incinerated during disposal
2d printers already print yellow dots which contain information about the printer for tracking purposes.
The question isn’t whether a manufacturer would play ball (or be compelled to) it’s whether it’s possible to do in a way where the information persists and doesn’t compromise the functionality of the print.
I think it’s bad, to be clear. I just think it’s not unreasonable to imagine manufacturers including that capability from the factory.
Except 3d printing has a much bigger open source community than 2d printers have.
There’s already software out there that can optimize the output file of a slicer - effectively rewriting the gcode. Removing any watermarks at the code level seems pretty trivial, even if every single slicer company relented and added this function
Which manufacturers are you talking about? The ones making the electronics without firmware? The open source firmware which anyone can install or modify? The open source web interface that anyone can install or modify? The open source slicers where anyone can use any slicer they wish to (and also are used to generate gcode used on multiple different machines)?
There is simply no point in this chain where something like this would be enforceable
Can you share which electronics don’t have firmware? I’m using a BambuLabs machine that certainly does. Any machine that’s supposed to work right out of the box would.
I understand you to be saying it’s possible to 3D print with an open source stack, which is good it’s at least possible vs most 2d printing. But that’s a very different thing than imagining a scenario where most 3d printers come from a store with this sort of fingerprinting enabled.
And it all could be circumvented by sanding and just using the part to make molds for resin etc.
Fuzzy skin, ironing, compile your own firmware, swap mainboards…this is a pointless solution that can only result in worse parts for the least technical users.
Impossible to deploy unless they force you to use their own slicer.
- Bamboo labs enters the conversation *
Gonna be a little harder for them to 100% push out other slicers and printers, since there are open source slicers out there, and the parts for a 3d printer are pretty generic.
I can see where the is going. In the future sanding your 3d part will be tantamount to removing the serial number on a gun.
I assume they add a custom wiggle to the print head so the “serial” is embedded into the plastic everywhere inside and out.
Exactly. So if that wiggle gets sanded off you have effectively anonymized your part
The wiggle isn’t only on the surface. I’d bet it is everywhere except for the surface or users would complain about defects. So if you sand the surface, the forensics slices it in half and reads the wiggle that is embedded everywhere inside.
Ha. I’ll bet you’re 100% correct.
When the wiggle is inside the part the part will be gone after sanding it off.
If the 3D part was used to make a gun, isn’t this a fair approach?
Why should I be prevented from manufacturing my own firearms? Gunsmithing is a perfectly legal hobby and I don’t understand why new technology needs to change the laws. Just continue enforcing the manufacture of and sale of illegal weapons. My 20g shotgun had a little plastic bit crumble in the hard grip, should it have been illegal for me to 3d print it’s replacement because it was involved in the manufacturing of a firearm?
Not all countries allow open ownership of weaponry. Most don’t allow this kind of stuff.
I am most definitely opposed to randoms making modifications to their weapons even if they have licensing to own a firearms.
What is a modification? Is a new grip a mod? Putting on a rail to add other stuff, like flashlights?
Anything of relevance to the “class” of your gun. If you really need it, you can file the right documentation. I am assuming flashlights are not relevant.
How does your 3D printer know that the object it’s printing is meant be part of a gun?
The 3D printer doesn’t need this information.
Ok, which part would know it is a part for a gun? And how would it know that? If the file name contains the word „gun“?
No, you could add serial numbers to each part or something similar.
Every single 3d printed part that is ever produced? Who should add the serial number? Are steel pipes from the hardware store also serialized?
This would maybe make it a bit harder, but not by that much. Couldn’t one just use the sanded-off 3D printed part as a template for a mould?
Or use an open source slicer and a home-built printer. My Ender has so few original parts that I named it “Ender of Threeseus”.
