Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
6/25/2018 7:04:05 PM
Posted: 7/10/2018 10:41:09 PM EDT
So 5 years ago, the 3D printed liberator got banned in the US due to breaches in ITAR. They raided the company and took their servers, all based on ITAR breaches of controlled information being disseminated through open means ( Deemed Exports )

Because of this, it's made it very difficult for me to share many of the models I've created since.

Today, the US government backtracked on that position, and says everything is OK.
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/18/07/10/2121233/doj-reaches-settlement-on-publication-of-files-about-3d-printed-firearms

This original case led to a lot of laws with respect to ITAR and what could be printed and shared. If not for this, we could share DIY PVS-14's, 3D printed boots for tubes, adapters and all kinds of stuff online that benefits the community but can't be permitted due to the print-to-manufacture issues with ITAR.

Except.... Seems some things are changing.

Could this case mean that Night Vision that is not designed specifically for the military is not inherently military and therefore not controlled? Helmets? Head mounts? Seems just because something fits and works with military applications no longer infers that an item is controlled. Could this mean that tubes might be the last technology that is counted in this case, opening up the market for just about everything else, and allowing an era of open collaboration to enter night vision development?

At a time when there are people laser-repairing tubes, designing PSUs, making their own boots and potting tubes, building adapters... Much of this all 3D printed, what are the ramifications of this US government backdown on ITAR related offences when it comes to printed technology?

Might be a few interesting months coming up for us all - :)

David.
Link Posted: 7/11/2018 12:10:10 AM EDT
IMHO if you don’t 3-d print object the state has already won
Link Posted: 7/11/2018 10:59:32 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By smeeg:
IMHO if you don't 3-d print object the state has already won
View Quote
It's not the printing they were prosecuting. It was the sharing.
Link Posted: 7/11/2018 11:12:11 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By smeeg:
IMHO if you don’t 3-d print object the state has already won
View Quote
Not if your in outer space. ...
Link Posted: 7/11/2018 12:16:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/11/2018 3:58:27 PM EDT
The question that needs to be explored is: What does ITAR actually say?

Post that and we can parse through it.
Link Posted: 7/12/2018 7:49:48 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 35Remington:
The question that needs to be explored is: What does ITAR actually say?

Post that and we can parse through it.
View Quote
ITAR says that if you publish detailed instructions on how to make something that is controlled, it's a deemed export.

AR15 is a controlled item. You can't just send them overseas.

What does the USML say about it?
ML1 Smooth-bore weapons with a calibre of less than 20 mm, other arms and automatic weapons with a calibre of 12.7 mm (calibre 0.50 inches) or less and accessories, as follows, and specially designed components therefor:

So yeah, that sounds like an AR15. This extended to accurate information that would allow someone to make one as well, such as a 3D printed part file.

Under this view, the seizing of the servers would have been valid, but now it's been determined not to be.

However, since some parts aren't really suitable for military use, even if the military can use them, there's some question as to whether they should be banned or not.

Some stuff on deemed exports: https://www.shippingsolutions.com/blog/why-the-deemed-export-rule-is-so-critical-ear-and-itar
Here's commentary on the original problem: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/does-it-violate-federal-export-law-if-a-website-publishes-cad-files-of-firearms/
And there's proposed changes to ITAR: https://www.ar15.com/forums/Armory/ITAR-Update/44-488536/

In a simplified explanation, the question is whether ITAR reaches as far now as it did before, and whether things that merely look like ITAR components but have been redesigned (eg, the AU-PVS-14 ) are subject to ITAR at all? Previously under the model imposed on many printable items, it would have.

Now? It's not so certain.

David
Link Posted: 7/12/2018 7:49:48 PM EDT
Does ITAR specifically keep anybody from designing things like NV mounts/helmets/accessories? Or is it only the image intensifiers and housings that are controlled? Kinda confused.
Link Posted: 7/13/2018 12:57:33 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By westernhaikus1:
Does ITAR specifically keep anybody from designing things like NV mounts/helmets/accessories? Or is it only the image intensifiers and housings that are controlled? Kinda confused.
View Quote
Specifically? Often not. It provides a series of instructions which are then interpreted.

But Helmets are, as are mounts. Tubes are, and so are monoculars, but bridges may be exempt from ITAR. It's sort of whatever is the main item controlled is specific, and anything that touches or interfaces with the main item are also included, but things that touch things that touch the main item are not included.

Intent is very very important. Something designed for military use is going to be on the list, while that same item if designed for non-military use, even if it's still militarily useful, would not be.

For example, I have a PVS-14 housing I designed that is considered to be an ITAR item simply because it resembles an ITAR item. On the other hand, my DBT-44 housing isn't an ITAR item, despite that it does exactly the same job, and uses most of the same components. The DBT-44 version A is actually available for download on my site and many people have downloaded it - some have even modified it.

So ITAR isn't as easy to predict as you might think. 3D printed weapons? Well, the government got that one wrong, so the question then is what else did they get wrong? Is a commercial housing that looks identical to a military housing and operates identically to a military housing an ITAR controlled item? For that matter, even if something is used by the military, if it's generic, might it still be considered not to be a controlled item under ITAR?

This new case has thrown a few spanners in the works. It might take time to see what the outcome is.
Link Posted: 7/13/2018 2:01:36 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cj7hawk:
Specifically? Often not. It provides a series of instructions which are then interpreted.

But Helmets are, as are mounts. Tubes are, and so are monoculars, but bridges may be exempt from ITAR. It's sort of whatever is the main item controlled is specific, and anything that touches or interfaces with the main item are also included, but things that touch things that touch the main item are not included.

Intent is very very important. Something designed for military use is going to be on the list, while that same item if designed for non-military use, even if it's still militarily useful, would not be.

For example, I have a PVS-14 housing I designed that is considered to be an ITAR item simply because it resembles an ITAR item. On the other hand, my DBT-44 housing isn't an ITAR item, despite that it does exactly the same job, and uses most of the same components. The DBT-44 version A is actually available for download on my site and many people have downloaded it - some have even modified it.

So ITAR isn't as easy to predict as you might think. 3D printed weapons? Well, the government got that one wrong, so the question then is what else did they get wrong? Is a commercial housing that looks identical to a military housing and operates identically to a military housing an ITAR controlled item? For that matter, even if something is used by the military, if it's generic, might it still be considered not to be a controlled item under ITAR?

This new case has thrown a few spanners in the works. It might take time to see what the outcome is.
View Quote
Could you post a link? I found your site (I think), but can't find where to download that. I have a printer and like tinkering with things.
Link Posted: 7/13/2018 9:17:29 PM EDT
It's here;

http://aunv.blackice.com.au/forum?index=3Dprojects&story=DBT44

Towards the bottom of the page.

It's been confirmed as not controlled, so sharing this one is fine. Even if they changed it's designation now, it's also in the public domain.

David
Link Posted: 7/13/2018 9:24:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/13/2018 9:29:04 PM EDT by lb6r]
Insert gay. I’ve seen files that improved the liberator with integral can in 9, 40 and 45 just because Obama said no. I’ve seen bump stock stl and other files. If you don’t share you are censorship.

ETA: oh this is now an itar conversation.!?! What does itar say about non citizens looking through nvg at shot show and signing the registrar at a us company’s booth?
Link Posted: 7/13/2018 10:29:07 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cj7hawk:
It's here;

http://aunv.blackice.com.au/forum?index=3Dprojects&story=DBT44

Towards the bottom of the page.

It's been confirmed as not controlled, so sharing this one is fine. Even if they changed it's designation now, it's also in the public domain.

David
View Quote
Thanks. I'm just beginning to learn about this stuff.

I'm old friends with ITAR though. It's serious business.
Link Posted: 7/13/2018 10:36:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/13/2018 11:25:07 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By smeeg:
Is this ITAR compliant?

https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2909932
View Quote
Do you mean, is it a controlled item under ITAR?

Most likely.

But it's also in the public domain now, and public domain extinguishes ITAR controls.

So the only person who would need to worry would be the person who shared it - Putting a controlled item into the public domain is an offence under ITAR. It's the same as exporting to an unfriendly country without a permit.

David.
Link Posted: 7/14/2018 12:02:22 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By lb6r:
Insert gay. I've seen files that improved the liberator with integral can in 9, 40 and 45 just because Obama said no. I've seen bump stock stl and other files. If you don't share you are censorship.

ETA: oh this is now an itar conversation.!?! What does itar say about non citizens looking through nvg at shot show and signing the registrar at a us company's booth?
View Quote
It was always a discussion around ITAR and how it relates to NV... It's not that "If you don't share you are censorship" - it's that many things that should be possible to share are not shared due to ITAR. I don't think most 3D printed items at today's technology level should be restricted by ITAR, but the US not only demanded it, but then pushed it onto other governments, such as the AU government.

It doesn't matter if you've seen files. It doesn't matter if you own files. It doesn't matter if you give those files to another person. It only becomes an issue when you post them openly online for anyone to copy.

Hopefully this will change.

As for non-citizens looking through NVGs at SHOT... Well, that was never about ITAR. I got the Australian government experts to evaluate that and provide me the results in writing based on official government interpretation of ITAR and it's not a problem under ITAR letting non-citizens look through scopes, but you know, that didn't come out of nowhere. There was a real law enforcement push behind that idea and it's foolish to ignore such matters.

The acknowledgement by the government that it was wrong to seize the servers of Defence Distributed are a major step along fixing the way ITAR looks at what is and isn't controlled. It reopens on August 1. I think a lot of people will download the files when it opens. Hopefully this will extend further to include NV as well as guns.

David
Top Top