14th Most Dangerous Man In The World

[Pertinacious Tom]

14th Most Dangerous Man In The World

...He's a self-styled "crypto-anarchist". He quotes Foucault. His Twitter handle is @Radomysisky, which was the real name of Zinoviev, the Russian revolutionary tried and executed at the start of the purges. He has a 19th-century taste for ideologies and theories. His hero is Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a Frenchman who, it's claimed, is the "father of anarchism" and was the first to declare that property is theft. And he believes that the Liberator will be a mechanism for radical redistribution of power.

He was a law student when he co-founded Defense Distributed . It's an organization that describes itself as "a non-profit software developer and publisher dedicated to striking the roots of all statist monopolism". Its mission is to "radicalize digital natives" by "employing political philosophy, activism and technology … to subvert the physical and digital architecture of oppression on behalf of the public".

What he isn't is some spotty loner who's dreamt all this up in his bedroom because he couldn't get a girlfriend. He was class president of his school, class president of his university, he had offers from Ivy League law schools. He is not even much of a geek. He didn't write the software, he announced it as a goal, at which point the company, Stratasys, that leased him his 3D printer, demanded its return, and the ensuing fight created headlines that led to developers and engineers flocking to his cause.

He is an articulate proponent of an influential new subculture. Welcome to the world of the techno-libertarians, an ideology based on the convergence of libertarian politics and a free and open web. Its poster boy is Peter Thiel, the billionaire co-founder of PayPal, and a funder of causes ranging from paying young people not to go to college, to Seasteading, a floating offshore nation state. Its spiritual home is Silicon Valley but, like the internet, it's distributed everywhere, an increasingly visible, well-funded new political ideology.

It is also for many people, liberals like myself, a pretty uncomfortable convergence. Because it's one thing to be pro-Edward Snowden, pro-internet privacy, pro-the open source movement. And it's another to be pro the freedom to print off your own assault weapon. And it's this discomfort that Cody Wilson is reveling in.

"There were a lot of comments on Reddit right when the government shut us down," says Wilson. "Reddit is normally anti-gun, by the way. It's young and it's left. And they were saying, 'Shit! I'm having to choose between a world of guns and a world of the managed internet! And I won't give up the internet, so therefore guns! It had forced the decision."

In fact, the issues that 3D guns raise are more complicated, sophisticated and ultimately unknowable than might first appear. Wilson and Defense Distributed are pushing at the margins of the internet, the margins of freedom, of what the ramifications of this technology will mean. And it's impossible to know. Technology is changing our relationship with everything. The future, once a far-off place of mind control and replicants, is thundering up behind us in our rear-view mirror. And he's right: it couldn't be more political....

How did he get all the way down to 14th? I'd say that to statists, he might just be number one.

To me, the world would seem more dangerous without his elk.

 

[Battlecheese]

14th because you need to be careful not to draw too much attention to the truely dangerous (to the establishment) people.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

14th because you need to be careful not to draw too much attention to the truely dangerous (to the establishment) people.

It is kind of an obscure number.

13th would have been funnier, being unlucky and all.

 

[mikewof]

He's an Anarchist.

Everything else there is convolution. If you support him, you support anarchy, at least to some degree.

It's not about guns as much it is about the A. There is a world of difference between anarchists and libertarians; anarchists are willing to sacrifice part of their wealth and comfort for their goals. Libertarians, more typically, use the ideals of anarchy to fight for their causes.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

He's an Anarchist.

Everything else there is convolution. If you support him, you support anarchy, at least to some degree.

It's not about guns as much it is about the A. There is a world of difference between anarchists and libertarians; anarchists are willing to sacrifice part of their wealth and comfort for their goals. Libertarians, more typically, use the ideals of anarchy to fight for their causes.

He says he's an anarchist, so why point out the obvious?

I loved that the Reddit tribe understood that they must choose between managed Internet content and guns and decided to support anarchy.

OK, maybe Cliff is going a bit far saying those people are now anarchists.

 

[mikewof]

He's an Anarchist.

Everything else there is convolution. If you support him, you support anarchy, at least to some degree.

It's not about guns as much it is about the A. There is a world of difference between anarchists and libertarians; anarchists are willing to sacrifice part of their wealth and comfort for their goals. Libertarians, more typically, these the ideals of anarchy to fight for their causes.

He says he's an anarchist, so why point out the obvious?
I loved that the Reddit tribe understood that they must choose between managed Internet content and guns and decided to support anarchy.

OK, maybe Cliff is going a bit far saying those people are now anarchists.

I restated his anarchy because the L-word managed to creep into the article, as well as left-right diversion. Is it necessary for libertarians to claim the sacrifices of anarchists as their own?
As for the Reddit users, if they want an unmanaged resource then they have embraced some ideals of anarchism. Their enlightenment began long ago, but in sacrificing something. it's clarifying their vision.

The divisions between left and right are meaningless in the spectrum of authoritarianism versus anarchy. In mentioning the left-right of the Internet group, the writer obviously didn't understand that, and in parroting it, you forgot it.

C'mon Normy, don't you keep up with the Libertarian screeds? Forgot about the World's Smallest Political Quiz already? That's the one big thing that Libertarians got right, they were the ones to introduce the inherent diversion of left-right politics as a means to guide people away from anarchy and into authoritarianism.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Yee, doggies... this case is about guns. And here I was ready to convict. I may need to rethink my position here. This man might deserve the benefit of the doubt.

For Tom - it's always the gun. Reminds me of the saying, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail, which reminded me of this...

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/70ca308603/it-s-not-about-the-nail

Always!

 

[Remodel]

Damn!

From the title, I thought this was going to be an ad for some obscure beer.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Most dangerous man, woman, or person?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Two years ago, Cody Wilson put his Liberator 3D printable gun design on the net.

Now the Second Amendment Foundation wants to do it again.

...Within two days of publishing the blueprints on the Internet, on May 5, 2013, 100,000 people around the world had downloaded them.

...

Wilson’s invention also caught the attention of the State Department, which came after him with both barrels blazing. The feds claimed Wilson violated the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, which “requires advance government authorization to export technical data,” and as a result, could spend up to 20 years in prison and be fined as much as $1 million per violation.

Wilson was ordered to remove the blueprints for The Liberator from his web site. The government also told him they were claiming ownership of his intellectual property.

“Defense Distributed is being penalized for trying to educate the public about 3-D guns,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation, whose organization is backing Defense Distributed in a court action.

Gottlieb said his Second Amendment group, made up of 650,000 members nationwide, wants to publish theinformation about three-dimensional printing of firearms on its web site as educational material for its members, supporters and general public.

On Wednesday, the Second Amendment Foundation filed a federal lawsuit on in Texas, where Defense Distributed is now based, alleging the State Department, Secretary of State John Kerry and four other State Department officials and the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, are among the defendants who violated Wilson’s First Amendment rights by restraining him from publishing information about three-dimensional printing of arms, as well as his Second and Fifth Amendment Rights.

...

The Liberator unleashed a panic about the threat of 3-D guns, Blackman said, pointing as an example to statements made by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who has proposed legislation that would ban 3-D guns.

“We’re facing a situation where anyone—a felon, a terrorist—can open a gun factory in their garage and the weapons they make will be undetectable. It’s stomach-churning,” Schumer said at a news conference in May 2013.

However, the threat of the 3-D guns, and the need for regulating them, has been greatly overstated, Blackman said.

“Contrary to Schumer's suggestion, a working gun does not pop out of the 3-D printer ready to fire, like a pop-tart from the toaster,” Blackman said. “Using a 3-D printer to create the parts, and assemble them, is a time-intensive process that requires advanced knowledge of machining and gunsmithing.”

Defense Distributed, which had released its blueprints at no charge until being ordered by the State Department to remove them, began in 2013 to sell a $1,500 milling machine called the “Ghost Gunner.”

With Defense Distributed software, the milling machine allows the user to build the plastic lower receiver for an AR-15 rifle, one of America’s most popular sporting rifles, and because it is self built, allows the owner to avoid registering the firearms with a government database....

100k copies of the Liberator downloaded, who knows how many of them subsequently shared, two years gone by, and once again Schumer's panic over guns proves unjustified.

 

[mikewof]

Normy, the panic may be unjustified, but remember, the technology still isn't there, so your point isn't exactly emboldened by reality. Right now, 3D printers are still fairly expensive and require a level of expertise to operate ... and oh yeah, most of them only print in plastic, not exactly the best material for making firearms.

But someday soon, when that piece of plywood next to your barn has weathered to dust, and every shmoe in Kalamazoo has a 3D printer that sits between their microwave oven and their Mr. Coffee, and that printer uses titanium powder to additive manufacture devices, that's when your support for those blueprints will take on a new level of urgency.

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

Normy, the panic may be unjustified, but remember, the technology still isn't there, so your point isn't exactly emboldened by reality. Right now, 3D printers are still fairly expensive and require a level of expertise to operate ... and oh yeah, most of them only print in plastic, not exactly the best material for making firearms.

But someday soon, when that piece of plywood next to your barn has weathered to dust, and every shmoe in Kalamazoo has a 3D printer that sits between their microwave oven and their Mr. Coffee, and that printer uses titanium powder to additive manufacture devices, that's when your support for those blueprints will take on a new level of urgency.

Funny that you'd phrase it as such, Mikey. Consider this perspective, if ya will: Could it be that the position isn't "support for blueprints" but, the opposition to ineffective government sponsored prohibition of an object based upon irrational ideas?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Normy, the panic may be unjustified, but remember, the technology still isn't there, so your point isn't exactly emboldened by reality. Right now, 3D printers are still fairly expensive and require a level of expertise to operate ... and oh yeah, most of them only print in plastic, not exactly the best material for making firearms.

But someday soon, when that piece of plywood next to your barn has weathered to dust, and every shmoe in Kalamazoo has a 3D printer that sits between their microwave oven and their Mr. Coffee, and that printer uses titanium powder to additive manufacture devices, that's when your support for those blueprints will take on a new level of urgency.

Doesn't look like Schumer's point is emboldened by reality and he's the one passing laws. If "someday soon" actually comes and we actually see a problem, that would be the time to try to solve it by seizing intellectual property and restricting its use. Preemptive restrictions are not justified and have proven unneeded.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

So I have to ask. The same people who are able to buy a gun ... are not allowed to print one? That correct?

No, that's wrong. We're allowed to build our own guns. Now that there's new technology to do it, we should be allowed to use it just as we've been allowed to adopt tech changes in the past.

 

[mikewof]

Normy, the panic may be unjustified, but remember, the technology still isn't there, so your point isn't exactly emboldened by reality. Right now, 3D printers are still fairly expensive and require a level of expertise to operate ... and oh yeah, most of them only print in plastic, not exactly the best material for making firearms.

But someday soon, when that piece of plywood next to your barn has weathered to dust, and every shmoe in Kalamazoo has a 3D printer that sits between their microwave oven and their Mr. Coffee, and that printer uses titanium powder to additive manufacture devices, that's when your support for those blueprints will take on a new level of urgency.

Funny that you'd phrase it as such, Mikey. Consider this perspective, if ya will: Could it be that the position isn't "support for blueprints" but, the opposition to ineffective government sponsored prohibition of an object based upon irrational ideas?

You're preaching the choir. I think it's ridiculous too.

But again, the reason it hasn't been an actual concern until now has as much to do with the deficient technology than the lack of desire or ability.

 

[mikewof]

Normy, the panic may be unjustified, but remember, the technology still isn't there, so your point isn't exactly emboldened by reality. Right now, 3D printers are still fairly expensive and require a level of expertise to operate ... and oh yeah, most of them only print in plastic, not exactly the best material for making firearms.

But someday soon, when that piece of plywood next to your barn has weathered to dust, and every shmoe in Kalamazoo has a 3D printer that sits between their microwave oven and their Mr. Coffee, and that printer uses titanium powder to additive manufacture devices, that's when your support for those blueprints will take on a new level of urgency.

Doesn't look like Schumer's point is emboldened by reality and he's the one passing laws. If "someday soon" actually comes and we actually see a problem, that would be the time to try to solve it by seizing intellectual property and restricting its use. Preemptive restrictions are not justified and have proven unneeded.

Seriously?

We have a Constitution that protects the ability to share knowledge like that. If it's an actual threat then we'll just have to deal with that without restricting the free exchange of blueprints. I'm more concerned about an attack on the First Amendment than I am about a bunch of people with titanium weapons.

I know a bit about additive manufacturing, not too much, but from what I do know, metal powder, deposited and baked, will never make tooling of the quality of gently-cut cold steel, because it's basically amorphous, the crystalline domains in well-protected cold steel are going to win in hardness.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Normy, the panic may be unjustified, but remember, the technology still isn't there, so your point isn't exactly emboldened by reality. Right now, 3D printers are still fairly expensive and require a level of expertise to operate ... and oh yeah, most of them only print in plastic, not exactly the best material for making firearms.

But someday soon, when that piece of plywood next to your barn has weathered to dust, and every shmoe in Kalamazoo has a 3D printer that sits between their microwave oven and their Mr. Coffee, and that printer uses titanium powder to additive manufacture devices, that's when your support for those blueprints will take on a new level of urgency.

Doesn't look like Schumer's point is emboldened by reality and he's the one passing laws. If "someday soon" actually comes and we actually see a problem, that would be the time to try to solve it by seizing intellectual property and restricting its use. Preemptive restrictions are not justified and have proven unneeded.

Seriously?

...

Yes, seriously, in the extremely unlikely event that "someday soon" ever comes.

What did you mean by "a new level of urgency" anyway?

 

[mikewof]

Normy, the panic may be unjustified, but remember, the technology still isn't there, so your point isn't exactly emboldened by reality. Right now, 3D printers are still fairly expensive and require a level of expertise to operate ... and oh yeah, most of them only print in plastic, not exactly the best material for making firearms.

But someday soon, when that piece of plywood next to your barn has weathered to dust, and every shmoe in Kalamazoo has a 3D printer that sits between their microwave oven and their Mr. Coffee, and that printer uses titanium powder to additive manufacture devices, that's when your support for those blueprints will take on a new level of urgency.

Doesn't look like Schumer's point is emboldened by reality and he's the one passing laws. If "someday soon" actually comes and we actually see a problem, that would be the time to try to solve it by seizing intellectual property and restricting its use. Preemptive restrictions are not justified and have proven unneeded.

Seriously?

...

Yes, seriously, in the extremely unlikely event that "someday soon" ever comes.

What did you mean by "a new level of urgency" anyway?

Do I understand correctly that if crime with these additive weapons becomes a problem that you might support restriction of the blueprints that make them? If so, I can't get behind that, at least from what I see now.

Regarding your question, I meant that it's one thing to support free distribution of blueprints when we currently don't have much in the way of general ability to effectively use them. But at some point inthefuture, if and when that ability becomes commonplace and easy, then the need for us to support the free exchange of that information will become more critical.

In other words, if we want to protect tigers, it's no big thing for us to advocate not shooting them if we live in NYC. But if NYC suddenly became infested with tigers, then our support for them would take on new urgency.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I was not seriously advocating the seizure of intellectual property and attempts at censorship we are seeing, more trying to point out that it's unnecessary and very likely won't be necessary.

...if and when that ability becomes commonplace and easy, then the need for us to support the free exchange of that information will become more critical.

I took your previous post to imply pretty much exactly the opposite. I agree that protecting technologies that can be abused is important and becomes more so if they are abused. Encryption is a good example.