• Xerenogan@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    951·
    6 months ago

    Alright, I stopped scrolling. Now what? Do I write a disapproving letter to my local politician?

    • matlag@sh.itjust.works
      73·
      6 months ago

      In theory, yes, you could make a mess, and any firmware is supposed to be certified to allow the device to be used.

      In practice, this has been a convenient excuse to keep a whole chip with a separate OS in every smartphone, and it is very difficult to isolate from the rest of the system (see Graphene OS efforts).

      I say all firmware should be opensource. Whether you’re allowed to change them or not is a separate question… for now.

      • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
        35·
        6 months ago

        Different countries regulate the radio spectrum differently, so transmitting on a certain frequency might be legal in country A but illegal in country B. They don’t bother making different radios for different countries, though; instead, they just build hardware capable of transmitting on all the frequencies and then restrict what it can do via the firmware. The argument goes, if they allow device owners to modify the firmware, then they might modify the radio to transmit illegally. Never mind that there are myriad other ways an attacker could do that, that are almost as cheap and easy…

        • vexikron@lemmy.zip
          331·
          6 months ago

          There are easier ways to cause chaos:

          Get a cheap phone.

          Write some code to have it play, at the loudest possible volume, a pure sine wave at 18000hz to 19000hz, just outside of the range nearly all humans can consciously be aware of hearing a sound, but within the range that prolonged exposure to this sound can cause humans to become panicked, irritable, delusional, sometimes even hallucinatory, and have immense difficulty sleeping.

          Leave the phone somewhere.

          Obviously, do not actually do this.

          Probably this would be considered terrorism, and get you in about as much trouble as fucking about with your conception of what could be used as a sort of crap tier EM jammer.

          • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
            4·
            6 months ago

            You don’t need a phone at all to do this. Or code. Or silicon. Just a cheap RC oscillator circuit tuned to that frequency and connected to a battery and a tweeter speaker.

            Edit: where’s RadioShack when you need it?

            • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
              1·
              6 months ago

              AliExpress bots have probably already read this comment and put together a ‘panic inducer top quality rechargeable usb frequency tweeter for wedding, birthday, sonic warfare, corporate and special event’ which you can buy for five dollars

            • vexikron@lemmy.zip
              1·
              6 months ago

              Driven out of business by the CIA and FBI to prevent this from being easily doable no doubt!

              (kidding, obviously lol)

            • vexikron@lemmy.zip
              32·
              6 months ago

              To the best of my knowledge,

              no, which is why I said write some code,

              And,

              it technically depends but probably most speakers for most consumer grade hardware can do this, though I do not know about optimal decibel levels at such decibel ranges to be necessary to induce the effect, relative to time, battery life, energy cost, etc.

              I will again repeat DO NOT DO THIS.

              It legitimately could be considered terrorism.

      • jpeps@lemmy.world
        20·
        6 months ago

        In additional to the other comment, I think there’s also a traditional fear of corruption in open source. If the code is public then malicious parties are free to read and take advantage of holes in the security. Secondly it would be possible to contribute code with secret functionality that goes unnoticed. These are fairly easily debunked but seem to remain in people’s heads.

        • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
          30·
          6 months ago

          Ugh I hate these arguments about giving bad actors easier access. Bad actors are going to figure out flaws and security holes whether it’s open source or not. Security through obfuscation is a temporary measure and having more eyes on the source means more chances for good actors to find flaws and publicize them for fixes.

    • dan@upvote.au
      2·
      6 months ago

      Isn’t this actually more likely to happen if it’s closed-source, since the code isn’t visible to third-parties like security researchers? That’s why zero days are a thing.

  • vexikron@lemmy.zip
    442·
    6 months ago

    Uploads thousands of open source 3d printed firearm designs

    Like this?

    (No Mr. FBI/ATF I do not actually have those)

    • BaroqueInMind@kbin.social
      21·
      6 months ago

      Just an FYI, that’s not illegal because it falls under the U.S. Constitutional protection of free speech; so also is printing and constructing them. Selling them or distributing guns as physical products is not protected, and is in fact illegal.

      • vexikron@lemmy.zip
        62·
        6 months ago

        Wait are you telling me it is legal to construct and possess a fully automatic firearm without a class three license?

        Or say, already own a firearm, and then construct a modification that makes it fall out of compliance with local laws by making it fully auto, having a magazine that is too large, or a bump stock or things like that?

        I am certain the situation is more complex than you seem to think, hence the semi-ironic disclaimer.

        • BrotherL0v3@lemmy.world
          11·
          6 months ago

          While NFA items are a different story, you’re generally allowed to manufacture anything you could legally buy in a store. So no suppressors / SBRs / destructive devices without the appropriate paperwork & tax stamps, no machine guns without all that and a time machine, and no fun allowed if you’re a prohibited person. Other than that, there’s nothing* stopping you from printing, say, a semi-automatic rifle with a 16 inch barrel or a glock frame.

          *Federally. Also, I am a dumbass and not a lawyer, do your own research.

          • vexikron@lemmy.zip
            21·
            6 months ago

            So… it is indeed vastly more complicated.

            Glad you agree, this is the internet, and I have run into people uh, quite often, who have gotten into trouble via having a simplistic view of very complex topics and believing they will be fine.

            Usually this is not on the topic of guns, but as we appear to live in the stupidest possible timeline, I can never be sure these days.

        • BaroqueInMind@kbin.social
          5·
          6 months ago

          Uploads thousands of open source 3d printed firearm designs

          Like this?

          (No Mr. FBI/ATF I do not actually have those)

          Nowhere in any part of your comment did you explicitly state, nor imply construction of full-auto and those have been illegal since the fucking 80’s.

          • vexikron@lemmy.zip
            31·
            6 months ago

            I made a very general joke.

            3d printed gun designs

            Then you said

            Just an FYI, that’s not illegal because it falls under the U.S. Constitutional protection of free speech; so also is printing and constructing them. Selling them or distributing guns as physical products is not protected, and is in fact illegal.

            ‘3d printed guns’ includes fully automatic guns.

            You then said printing or constructing them is not illegal and is protected by Freedom of Speech.

            Then I pointed out that 3d printed guns includes automatic weapons.

            At this point, I do not actually know if you are aware that you /can/ find designs for fully automatic weapons on some 3d printed gun sites, and that there are, as I mentioned, a lot of people who are very adamant about that being fine and totally legal.

            Again, hence my semi-ironic disclaimer to the FBI/ATF.

            How do you think I know there are 3d printed full auto designs, usually in .22lr?

            I say ‘Semi-Ironic’ because I may actually be on a relatively low priority watch list simply for browsing such sites.

            • BaroqueInMind@kbin.social
              3·
              6 months ago

              I promise you are not on a watch list for looking at 3D printer files. This is the kind of shit the ATF likes to spread to scare people.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          01·
          6 months ago

          Wait are you telling me it is legal to construct and possess a fully automatic firearm without a class three license?

          No.

          A semi-auto? Yes.

          With your class III SOT? Sure, full auto.

          Or say, already own a firearm, and then construct a modification that makes it fall out of compliance with local laws by making it fully auto, having a magazine that is too large, or a bump stock or things like that?

          Bump stocks are legal again Mr. Outdated Info, but like I mentioned above, while manufacturing things you’re allowed to own is something you’re allowed to do, manufacturing something you’re not allowed to own is perhaps unsurprisingly not allowed. Wtf are we doing here, really? You couldn’t have figured this out?

          I am certain the situation is more complex than you seem to think, hence the semi-ironic disclaimer.

          I mean no not really, these wild claims are yours and yours alone.

          • vexikron@lemmy.zip
            11·
            6 months ago

            Cool, /wasn’t replying to you or commenting on the situation generally/.

            Glad you felt the need to take my words out of context and then act as if I was being ‘wild’.

            You are exactly the kind of person I /thought/ the person /I was actually replying to might be/, the kind of disingenuous, abusive, gaslighting, reckless asshole that gives less insane firearms enthusiasts a bad reputation.

            • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              11·
              6 months ago

              I/responded/to/you/,generally/.

              I didn’t take them out of context, from your statement it is clear you read into the one you replied to and decided it meant he was implying that all other laws and restrictions are null and void simply because some other thing is legal. It’s like if he said “you can actually legally put rat poison in peanut butter” in the context of killing rats in their attic and you say “oh yeah well what if you feed it to your neighbor’s kid.” Obviously the other relevant laws still apply, your comment is not needed at all.

              No/u/lol/and/WTF/is/with/the/slashes?

          • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
            1·
            6 months ago

            It’s just not how I’m used to thinking of it I guess. Sharing gun designs for 3D printer just doesn’t seem like the sort of thing that would be covered by free speech. I always think of sharing your views, opinions, arguing for something and so on as free speech. My reaction would be to consider that other stuff as some sort of publishing or some such thing.

            • BaroqueInMind@kbin.social
              1·
              6 months ago

              My reaction would be to consider that other stuff as some sort of publishing or some such thing.

              Apologies for my poor reading comprehension, i am kind of dumb; can you please elaborate what you mean by that sentence?

              • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                1·
                6 months ago

                It just feels more like distributing a product or something rather than it being the speech mentioned in free speech. I’m not making a legal argument or anything btw, I’m just talking about what the term brings to my mind.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      1·
      6 months ago

      (No Mr. FBI/ATF I do not actually have those)

      They’re legal, they can suck a fat one even if you do have them. You can even have the files for a DIAS (but if you print a DIAS and get caught you’ll be in prison for 10yr.) You can print guns just fine legally though, but only for you they are not* transferrable.

      *There is some contention over whether or not it would be legal to transfer. The law specifies intent which is hard to prove, and lends itself to the “well I intended to build it for me, but then eventually I let go of it when I wanted to upgrade…” argument. Thus far I don’t think precedent has been set and I certainly don’t want to be the case that sets it.

      • vexikron@lemmy.zip
        11·
        6 months ago

        Mhm, theres tons of people who have been imprisoned who have done what you outlined in your asterisk there and it did not work out for them in court.

        Regardless of how it /should be/, I am worried about /existing reality/, sure seems like this whole situation is astoundingly technical, complex, constantly changing with different rules being interpreted differently by different judges according to different laws in different locales which pass different relevant laws pretty frequently.

        Sure seems like a blanket statement covering guns without a huge write up of specific disclaimers, or a general added comment joking about the complexity of the situation by disavowing being possibly in possession of things that may possibly lead to incarceration is warranted.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          1·
          6 months ago

          Mhm, theres tons of people who have been imprisoned who have done what you outlined in your asterisk there and it did not work out for them in court.

          There are also people who the DA neglected to bring charges against at all, and people sometimes get acquitted for the same crimes another gets convicted for, with the same or similar evidence, because the jurors voted differently or the lawyers in one were better than the other. Welcome to the American justice system. I notice you glossed over the part where I said “but I wouldn’t try that myself” too, interesting.

          Regardless of how it /should be/, I am worried about /existing reality/,

          Ok, well as reality currently exists you can manufacture any arms you can legally own for yourself. You can even manufacture suppressors if you do the right forms, engrave the relevant info, and pay your $200 extortion fee. Yes “all those other laws that apply still apply, you can’t legally murder someone with it either, duh, and your entire comment is just Mr. Obvious bullshit.”

          All the laws regarding all firearms are everchanging because people keep attempting pointless feature bans and the ATF who cannot legally regulate as they are not a regularory agency keeps changing their “rules” that totally aren’t “laws” even though they carry 10+yr prison sentances specifically to make gun ownership undesirable. Welcome to gun ownership “ghost” or otherwise. This doesn’t make the statement that “actually gun files are legal to have, you can even legally print them” false just because you read into it too hard and assume that means it allows you to break other laws.

    • psud@lemmy.world
      8·
      6 months ago

      It’s about everything. Computers, phones, the computer that makes your car work. Every bit of electronics that boots - that probably includes your smoke detector and oven

  • graphito@sopuli.xyz
    111·
    6 months ago

    Although It’s less about guns and more about paying/donating to projects on GPL. If you don’t know where to donate, start with Firefox. Every £ matters

  • xia@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    4·
    6 months ago

    I hear Raptor Computing is working on a nextgen workstation… more than just “open”. Iirc, someone even ported coreboot to one of their machines.

    • psud@lemmy.world
      8·
      6 months ago

      All of it. Computers, phones, cable modems, cameras cars.

      We need it to be open, especially for networked equipment so we can keep it secure and running after the manufacturer stops supporting it.