New York 3D printer blocking technology mandate: Difference between revisions
Bolded important topics concerning the way the mandate was signed in and how it cannot work with offline printers. |
Add legality notes |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
The law responds to firearms that can be produced from digital design files on consumer additive-manufacturing hardware, including untraceable ghost guns and pistol-conversion devices that turn a semi-automatic handgun into a machine gun. Governor Hochul's office presented the budget measures as a response to illegal 3D-printed ghost guns and do-it-yourself machine guns, pairing the 3D-printer rules with new criminal penalties for digital gun files.<ref name="gov" /> The gun-safety group Everytown for Gun Safety characterized the package as shutting down what it called the ''"plastic pipeline"'' of do-it-yourself firearms.<ref name="everytown" /> The private creation of firearms for personal use, including via 3D printing, is not prohibited by US law,<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-09-11 |title=Privately Made Firearms {{!}} ATF |url=https://www.atf.gov/firearms/privately-made-firearms |url-status=live |website=Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives}}</ref> but New York State has its own legislation prohibiting privately made firearms.<ref>{{Cite web |title=NY State Senate Bill 2021-S14A |url=https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/S14 |url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
The law responds to firearms that can be produced from digital design files on consumer additive-manufacturing hardware, including untraceable ghost guns and pistol-conversion devices that turn a semi-automatic handgun into a machine gun. Governor Hochul's office presented the budget measures as a response to illegal 3D-printed ghost guns and do-it-yourself machine guns, pairing the 3D-printer rules with new criminal penalties for digital gun files.<ref name="gov" /> The gun-safety group Everytown for Gun Safety characterized the package as shutting down what it called the ''"plastic pipeline"'' of do-it-yourself firearms.<ref name="everytown" /> | |||
'''Rather than moving as a standalone firearms bill with its own floor debate, the measure was enacted inside the Public Protection and General Government article of the state budget''', as Part C of S. 9005-C / A. 10005-C.<ref name="bill" /> Part C is split into Subpart A, which adds the criminal-law definitions and file offenses, and Subpart B, which creates the working group and file library in Executive Law § 837-aa and the device-sales requirement in General Business Law § 396-eeee.<ref name="bill" /><ref name="bill-pdf" /> The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action objected to the use of the budget as the vehicle, calling it a ''"strategic move to put divisive legislation into an all-or-nothing budget bill"'' rather than passing the measure as a standalone bill subject to its own debate.<ref name="nra" /> | '''Rather than moving as a standalone firearms bill with its own floor debate, the measure was enacted inside the Public Protection and General Government article of the state budget''', as Part C of S. 9005-C / A. 10005-C.<ref name="bill" /> Part C is split into Subpart A, which adds the criminal-law definitions and file offenses, and Subpart B, which creates the working group and file library in Executive Law § 837-aa and the device-sales requirement in General Business Law § 396-eeee.<ref name="bill" /><ref name="bill-pdf" /> The National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action objected to the use of the budget as the vehicle, calling it a ''"strategic move to put divisive legislation into an all-or-nothing budget bill"'' rather than passing the measure as a standalone bill subject to its own debate.<ref name="nra" /> | ||
==What the law requires== | ==What the law requires== | ||
The operative command sits in the new General Business Law § 396-eeee (1): | The operative command sits in the new General Business Law § 396-eeee (1): | ||
<blockquote>''No person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation shall sell or deliver any three-dimensional printer in the state of New York unless such printer is equipped with blocking technology.'' | <blockquote>''No person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation shall sell or deliver any three-dimensional printer in the state of New York unless such printer is equipped with blocking technology.''<ref name="bill" /></blockquote> | ||
Executive Law § 837-aa (1)(b) defines that blocking technology as hardware, software, firmware, or other integrated measures that keep a printer from running any print job ''"unless the underlying three-dimensional printing file has been evaluated by a firearms blueprint detection algorithm and determined not to be a printing file that would produce a firearm or illegal firearm parts."''<ref name="bill" /> The detection algorithm itself is defined in § 837-aa (1)(c) as a software service that evaluates printing files, ''"whether in the form of stereolithography (STL) files or other computer aided design files or geometric code,"'' and flags any file that could produce a firearm or illegal firearm parts.<ref name="bill" /> | Executive Law § 837-aa (1)(b) defines that blocking technology as hardware, software, firmware, or other integrated measures that keep a printer from running any print job ''"unless the underlying three-dimensional printing file has been evaluated by a firearms blueprint detection algorithm and determined not to be a printing file that would produce a firearm or illegal firearm parts."''<ref name="bill" /> The detection algorithm itself is defined in § 837-aa (1)(c) as a software service that evaluates printing files, ''"whether in the form of stereolithography (STL) files or other computer aided design files or geometric code,"'' and flags any file that could produce a firearm or illegal firearm parts.<ref name="bill" /> | ||
| Line 24: | Line 22: | ||
==Implementation timeline== | ==Implementation timeline== | ||
The signing on May 27, 2026 did not switch on the device requirement. The § 837-aa working group and file-library provisions took effect on enactment, but the § 396-eeee sales prohibition is gated behind a chain of contingent steps and will not bind printer sellers for years.<ref name="bill" /><ref name="bill-pdf" /> | The signing on May 27, 2026 did not switch on the device requirement. The § 837-aa working group and file-library provisions took effect on enactment, but the § 396-eeee sales prohibition is gated behind a chain of contingent steps and will not bind printer sellers for years.<ref name="bill" /><ref name="bill-pdf" /> | ||
| Line 31: | Line 28: | ||
That chain can also stop entirely. The statute carries a feasibility escape hatch in § 837-aa (2): | That chain can also stop entirely. The statute carries a feasibility escape hatch in § 837-aa (2): | ||
<blockquote>''[I]f the working group determines that it is not technologically feasible to require three-dimensional printers sold in the state of New York to include blocking technology, the working group shall so report, and no regulations shall be required to be promulgated pursuant to this section, until such time as the working group determines that it is technologically feasible.'' | <blockquote>''[I]f the working group determines that it is not technologically feasible to require three-dimensional printers sold in the state of New York to include blocking technology, the working group shall so report, and no regulations shall be required to be promulgated pursuant to this section, until such time as the working group determines that it is technologically feasible.''<ref name="bill-pdf" /></blockquote> | ||
If the working group makes that finding, no rules issue and the sales requirement never takes effect, deferred indefinitely until a future finding of feasibility.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> | If the working group makes that finding, no rules issue and the sales requirement never takes effect, deferred indefinitely until a future finding of feasibility.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> | ||
==Scope and definitions== | ==Scope and definitions== | ||
The reach of the mandate turns on how broadly the statute defines a 3D printer. Penal Law § 265.00 (38), mirrored in Executive Law § 837-aa (1)(a), defines the term in two prongs: | |||
<blockquote>''"Three-dimensional printer" means: (a) any machine capable of rendering a three-dimensional object from a digital design file using additive manufacturing; or (b) any machine capable of making three-dimensional modifications to an object from a digital design file using subtractive manufacturing.''<ref name="bill" /></blockquote> | |||
The statute does not separately define ''"additive manufacturing,"'' ''"subtractive manufacturing,"'' or a CNC machine, and it contains no carve-out for machine size, intended purpose, or consumer use.<ref name="bill" /> Writing for Adafruit, Phillip Torrone read the two prongs as reaching past consumer 3D printers, arguing the definitions ''"sweep in not just FDM and resin printers, but also CNC mills"'' along with any machine that performs subtractive manufacturing from a digital file.<ref name="adafruit-ctrlaltdel">{{Cite web |url=https://blog.adafruit.com/2026/02/03/new-york-wants-to-ctrlaltdelete-your-3d-printer/ |title=New York Wants to Ctrl+Alt+Delete Your 3D Printer |author=Phillip Torrone |publisher=Adafruit Industries |date=2026-02-03 |access-date=2026-06-02}}</ref><ref name="techdirt" /> On that reading the mandate would apply to: | |||
* '''Additive manufacturing''' (prong (a)): | |||
** consumer FDM and resin printers | |||
** machines running open-source firmware such as Marlin, Klipper, and RepRap, which Torrone noted are maintained by volunteers with no resources for compliance | |||
** printers that operate offline and never contact the internet | |||
* '''Subtractive manufacturing''' (prong (b)): | |||
** CNC mills, which Torrone wrote can machine any shape from any material | |||
Torrone added that the requirement also reaches file formats and workflows the detection algorithm cannot parse, including raw G-code, custom slicers, and parametric designs generated at print time.<ref name="adafruit-ctrlaltdel" /> | |||
Under the statute, the minimum performance standards for blocking technology are left to the working group and the rules that follow, rather than written into the law itself.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> | Under the statute, the minimum performance standards for blocking technology are left to the working group and the rules that follow, rather than written into the law itself.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> | ||
==Criminal provisions== | ==Criminal provisions== | ||
Subpart A adds new digital-file offenses to the Penal Law, alongside a new definition of ''"digital firearm manufacturing code"'' in § 265.00 (39) covering computer-aided design files or other code that can program a 3D printer or CNC milling machine to produce a firearm, ghost gun, unfinished frame or receiver, silencer, rapid-fire modification device, or major firearm component.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> | Subpart A adds new digital-file offenses to the Penal Law, alongside a new definition of ''"digital firearm manufacturing code"'' in § 265.00 (39) covering computer-aided design files or other code that can program a 3D printer or CNC milling machine to produce a firearm, ghost gun, unfinished frame or receiver, silencer, rapid-fire modification device, or major firearm component.<ref name="bill-pdf" /> | ||
| Line 54: | Line 58: | ||
==Technical feasibility criticism== | ==Technical feasibility criticism== | ||
The central technical objection is that no detection algorithm can reliably separate gun-part geometry from ordinary mechanical geometry. Phillip Torrone of Adafruit, whose critique Techdirt reproduced, argued that such a system would have to identify every possible firearm component from raw STL and G-code files without flagging the pipes, tubes, blocks, brackets, gears, and other common shapes that share geometric properties with gun parts, which he framed as a classification problem carrying high false-positive and false-negative rates.<ref name="techdirt" /> | The central technical objection is that no detection algorithm can reliably separate gun-part geometry from ordinary mechanical geometry. Phillip Torrone of Adafruit, whose critique Techdirt reproduced, argued that such a system would have to identify every possible firearm component from raw STL and G-code files without flagging the pipes, tubes, blocks, brackets, gears, and other common shapes that share geometric properties with gun parts, which he framed as a classification problem carrying high false-positive and false-negative rates.<ref name="techdirt" /> | ||
Slicing software converts a 3D model into machine instructions (G-code) that describe tool paths, not labeled parts, so the file a printer executes does not announce what object it builds. '''Many machines also run offline, and much of the firmware that drives consumer printers is open source, which means a scanning requirement cannot be enforced on a printer that never contacts the state library or that runs community firmware the mandate does not reach.'''<ref name="techdirt" /> The Electronic Frontier Foundation summarized the technical bet as ''"an unfeasible tech solution."''<ref name="eff" /> | Slicing software converts a 3D model into machine instructions (G-code) that describe tool paths, not labeled parts, so the file a printer executes does not announce what object it builds. Furthermore, additive 3D manufacturing typically involves the use of additional temporary material such as support material<ref name="prusa-support-material">[https://help.prusa3d.com/article/support-material%201698 Support Material | Prusa Knowledge Base]. Retrieved 2026-06-02.</ref> and brims<ref name="prusa-brim">[https://help.prusa3d.com/article/skirt-and-brim_133969#brim Skirt and Brim | Prusa Knowledge Base]. Retrieved 2026-06-02.</ref>, which further complicates detection. Prints can be oriented in a variety of ways, which will cause the slicer to generate entirely different G-code. '''Many machines also run offline, and much of the firmware that drives consumer printers is open source, which means a scanning requirement cannot be enforced on a printer that never contacts the state library or that runs community firmware the mandate does not reach.'''<ref name="techdirt" /> The Electronic Frontier Foundation summarized the technical bet as ''"an unfeasible tech solution."''<ref name="eff" /> | ||
==Consumer-rights and surveillance concerns== | ==Consumer-rights and surveillance concerns== | ||
The consumer-rights objection is that the mandate puts a state-defined filter between owners and hardware they bought. The Electronic Frontier Foundation described print-blocking as ''"censorware,"'' software that it said ''"surveils every print,"'' and framed the requirement as surveillance of lawful printing carried out on the owner's own machine.<ref name="eff" /> | The consumer-rights objection is that the mandate puts a state-defined filter between owners and hardware they bought. The Electronic Frontier Foundation described print-blocking as ''"censorware,"'' software that it said ''"surveils every print,"'' and framed the requirement as surveillance of lawful printing carried out on the owner's own machine.<ref name="eff" /> | ||
A blocking-technology requirement is a manufacturer-side technical control fixed to hardware the buyer already owns. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has framed print blocking as anti-consumer for the same reason, treating a mandated filter on an owner's machine as a restriction on lawful use of property.<ref name="eff-permission" /> The group compared the requirement to [[Digital rights management|DRM]], calling manufacturer-provided software restrictions ''"an old tactic from the DRM playbook"'' and tracing the approach to the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]], which it said made bypassing DRM a federal crime.<ref name="eff-permission" /> Techdirt noted that much of the firmware running consumer printers, including open-source projects such as Marlin, Klipper, and RepRap, would not ship with a state-compliant detection algorithm, so a scanning requirement could push owners toward proprietary, locked-down machines.<ref name="techdirt" /> | A blocking-technology requirement is a manufacturer-side technical control fixed to hardware the buyer already owns. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has framed print blocking as anti-consumer for the same reason, treating a mandated filter on an owner's machine as a restriction on lawful use of property.<ref name="eff-permission" /> The group compared the requirement to [[Digital rights management|DRM]], calling manufacturer-provided software restrictions ''"an old tactic from the DRM playbook"'' and tracing the approach to the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]], which it said made bypassing DRM a federal crime.<ref name="eff-permission" /> Techdirt noted that much of the firmware running consumer printers, including open-source projects such as Marlin, Klipper, and RepRap, would not ship with a state-compliant detection algorithm, so a scanning requirement could push owners toward proprietary, locked-down machines.<ref name="techdirt" /> | ||
Furthermore, if someone encounters a false positive, the law does not outline any remediation or exemption procedure. The law does not even acknowledge nor even contain the term "false positive"<ref name="bill" />. Even if an algorithm is developed which has sufficiently low error rates on currently-available models, the error rate will generally increase once people start intentionally trying to find ways around it. This is known as an "Adversarial Example" and is a well-documented way to evade or deliberately confuse machine learning algorithms.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kurakin |first=Alexey |last2=Goodfellow |first2=Ian |last3=Bengio |first3=Samy |date=2017-02-11 |title=Adversarial examples in the physical world |url=https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.02533 |url-status=live |access-date=2026-06-02 |website=arXiv}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Molnar |first=Christoph |url=https://christophm.github.io/interpretable-ml-book/adversarial.html |title=Interpretable Machine Learning: A Guide For Making Black Box Models Explainable |date=2025-03-13 |edition=3rd}}</ref> | |||
==Comparison to other states== | ==Comparison to other states== | ||
New York's measure is one of several state efforts in 2026 to regulate 3D-printed firearms through the printer rather than only the file. Washington's House Bill 2321, titled ''"Requiring three-dimensional printers be equipped with certain blocking technologies,"'' would require printers sold in the state to carry blocking features tied to a firearms blueprint detection algorithm.<ref name="wa-bill" /> The bill was prefiled on January 8, 2026 and referred to the House Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee, where it remained as of June 1, 2026; it has not been enacted.<ref name="wa-bill" /> As reported by Tom's Hardware, the bill would prohibit sales after July 1, 2027 and set penalties as a class C felony carrying up to five years in prison and a $15,000 fine.<ref name="toms-wa" /> | New York's measure is one of several state efforts in 2026 to regulate 3D-printed firearms through the printer rather than only the file. Washington's House Bill 2321, titled ''"Requiring three-dimensional printers be equipped with certain blocking technologies,"'' would require printers sold in the state to carry blocking features tied to a firearms blueprint detection algorithm.<ref name="wa-bill" /> The bill was prefiled on January 8, 2026 and referred to the House Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee, where it remained as of June 1, 2026; it has not been enacted.<ref name="wa-bill" /> As reported by Tom's Hardware, the bill would prohibit sales after July 1, 2027 and set penalties as a class C felony carrying up to five years in prison and a $15,000 fine.<ref name="toms-wa" /> | ||
| Line 74: | Line 77: | ||
==Reactions== | ==Reactions== | ||
On the gun-safety side, the Governor's office presented the law as setting ''"first-in-the-nation minimum safety standards for 3D printers sold in New York to be equipped with basic technology that prevents the unlicensed, illegal production of lethal firearms and firearm parts,"'' and directed the Division of Criminal Justice Services to lead the expert task force.<ref name="gov" /> Everytown for Gun Safety praised the budget as nation-leading action against do-it-yourself machine guns and 3D-printed firearms.<ref name="everytown" /> | On the gun-safety side, the Governor's office presented the law as setting ''"first-in-the-nation minimum safety standards for 3D printers sold in New York to be equipped with basic technology that prevents the unlicensed, illegal production of lethal firearms and firearm parts,"'' and directed the Division of Criminal Justice Services to lead the expert task force.<ref name="gov" /> Everytown for Gun Safety praised the budget as nation-leading action against do-it-yourself machine guns and 3D-printed firearms.<ref name="everytown" /> | ||
| Line 104: | Line 106: | ||
</references> | </references> | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:American legislation]] | ||
[[Category:Right to Repair]] | [[Category:Right to Repair]] | ||
[[Category:Digital rights management]] | [[Category:Digital rights management]] | ||