SilentStalker
Member
Any more news on this?
ITAR Restrictions Expanding to Cover Firearms Info?
- Thread starter barnbwt
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
The 'news' is we have only two weeks remaining to register comments, and it appears these changes accomplish pretty much exactly what we were afraid of. No more discussion about important aspects of new firearms or ammo without State Dept. approval.
They appear to have clearly confirmed this themselves in the press conference excerpt I linked. That bit was what I was unaware of. I had assumed this would go under the radar without any question whatsoever, but apparently one reporter did make a brief attempt to get some clarification. All technical and detailed information on firearms will be subject to ITAR controls, so apparently our 'concerns were misplaced,' to paraphrase the article.
Here's the link to the Register again, since we're on a new page. The swine don't update the comment totals daily, but it appears another ten comments in the last day or so. Pitiful.
TCB
They appear to have clearly confirmed this themselves in the press conference excerpt I linked. That bit was what I was unaware of. I had assumed this would go under the radar without any question whatsoever, but apparently one reporter did make a brief attempt to get some clarification. All technical and detailed information on firearms will be subject to ITAR controls, so apparently our 'concerns were misplaced,' to paraphrase the article.
Here's the link to the Register again, since we're on a new page. The swine don't update the comment totals daily, but it appears another ten comments in the last day or so. Pitiful.
TCB
DHJenkins
Member
Implement website geolocation restrictions to disallow users not located within the USA access to the forum. Problem solved.
It's nothing new; sites with copywritten material have been doing it since the DMCA went into effect.
It's nothing new; sites with copywritten material have been doing it since the DMCA went into effect.
Last edited:
OP
OP
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Problem solved, huh?
Sites are shut down daily for violating DMCA. Individuals' internet connections shut down, activity forwarded to authorities. Occasional prosecutions of the worst offenders, sometimes ending in suicide (why, just today, in fact). ITAR is the same sort of mechanism, but with national security implications. It won't be hack-job law firms for record companies pursuing charges, but none other than the State Department.
No, I don't think being forced onto the dark net or Tor connections to participate in a perfectly legal and moral hobby is something I'm okay with. In fact, that kind of totalitarian scenario is precisely why our government set up Tor in the first place. So people in China could learn about freedom without being arrested (maybe. If they're careful and lucky).
If you actually read the ITAR text, it is clear that an easily-circumvented approach like filtering will satisfy no one. This stuff will not be permitted to be accessed by foreign persons. That includes people in the US. And that means that the only way to host a site discussing the items is for a fully-encrypted, domestically-located intranet incapable of accessing forign servers, whose users must each be registered as US persons cleared to access ITAR data, using secure logons. No one will go to the trouble. No one. Even more troubling, the rules stipulate that anyone engaged in creating ITAR defense articles must be registered to do so with the State Department. So that registration of US persons would have to happen for anyone seeking to innovate in the hobby, whether they intend to publish online or not.
The best result will be that discussion of such things openly will result in a mod shutting down the thread, deleting offending posts, and punishing posters with bans or reprimands. That is what is done on most gun forums for people posting illegal firearms conversion details (or even discussing them), and that information itself is not even illegal. Worst case, forum moderators will feel compelled to not only shut down, ban, and delete the posts/posters, but also report the posters to authorities (because the post itself constitutes a crime under ITAR)
It might seem difficult or even impossible to enforce such a Draconian regulation, but look at the NFA or even the tax code, which are similarly regulations drafted by enforcement bodies. Look at the laws against espionage and how doggedly authorities have pursued Wiki-leakers and whistleblowers.
TCB
Sites are shut down daily for violating DMCA. Individuals' internet connections shut down, activity forwarded to authorities. Occasional prosecutions of the worst offenders, sometimes ending in suicide (why, just today, in fact). ITAR is the same sort of mechanism, but with national security implications. It won't be hack-job law firms for record companies pursuing charges, but none other than the State Department.
No, I don't think being forced onto the dark net or Tor connections to participate in a perfectly legal and moral hobby is something I'm okay with. In fact, that kind of totalitarian scenario is precisely why our government set up Tor in the first place. So people in China could learn about freedom without being arrested (maybe. If they're careful and lucky).
If you actually read the ITAR text, it is clear that an easily-circumvented approach like filtering will satisfy no one. This stuff will not be permitted to be accessed by foreign persons. That includes people in the US. And that means that the only way to host a site discussing the items is for a fully-encrypted, domestically-located intranet incapable of accessing forign servers, whose users must each be registered as US persons cleared to access ITAR data, using secure logons. No one will go to the trouble. No one. Even more troubling, the rules stipulate that anyone engaged in creating ITAR defense articles must be registered to do so with the State Department. So that registration of US persons would have to happen for anyone seeking to innovate in the hobby, whether they intend to publish online or not.
The best result will be that discussion of such things openly will result in a mod shutting down the thread, deleting offending posts, and punishing posters with bans or reprimands. That is what is done on most gun forums for people posting illegal firearms conversion details (or even discussing them), and that information itself is not even illegal. Worst case, forum moderators will feel compelled to not only shut down, ban, and delete the posts/posters, but also report the posters to authorities (because the post itself constitutes a crime under ITAR)
It might seem difficult or even impossible to enforce such a Draconian regulation, but look at the NFA or even the tax code, which are similarly regulations drafted by enforcement bodies. Look at the laws against espionage and how doggedly authorities have pursued Wiki-leakers and whistleblowers.
TCB
USAF_Vet
Member
Commented.
To whom it may concern:
I strongly oppose the rewrite of the State Departments arms control regulations (ITAR), which could potentially grant the State Department a wide-ranging power to monitor and control gun-related speech on the Internet.
The new language -- which includes making technical data available via a publicly available network (e.g., the Internet) -- could put anyone who violates this provision in danger of facing decades in prison and massive fines.
So posting information on virtually any firearm or ammunition could be defined by the Obama administration, or future administrations as requiring, not only government permission, but potentially a government license. This means violators would potentially face significant criminal penalties.
What does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" mean if a bureaucracy like the State Department can circumvent the 1st Amendment by creating their own regulations without a single vote? That's not how the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was designed to work.
I also oppose the addition of the word software into these regulations, as it appears to be a not-so-veiled effort to ban the use of 3-D printers for firearms related parts and components..
I urge you to repeal these new regulations in their entirety. Whether you like it or not, the First and Second Amendments are still the law of the land!
To whom it may concern:
I strongly oppose the rewrite of the State Departments arms control regulations (ITAR), which could potentially grant the State Department a wide-ranging power to monitor and control gun-related speech on the Internet.
The new language -- which includes making technical data available via a publicly available network (e.g., the Internet) -- could put anyone who violates this provision in danger of facing decades in prison and massive fines.
So posting information on virtually any firearm or ammunition could be defined by the Obama administration, or future administrations as requiring, not only government permission, but potentially a government license. This means violators would potentially face significant criminal penalties.
What does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" mean if a bureaucracy like the State Department can circumvent the 1st Amendment by creating their own regulations without a single vote? That's not how the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was designed to work.
I also oppose the addition of the word software into these regulations, as it appears to be a not-so-veiled effort to ban the use of 3-D printers for firearms related parts and components..
I urge you to repeal these new regulations in their entirety. Whether you like it or not, the First and Second Amendments are still the law of the land!
DHJenkins
Member
Barnbwt, I was referring to sites that host copywritten content legally - like ABC.com, where you'll get a message saying "you must be located within the US to view this content" if you're overseas and you click on a link - I was not suggesting that this site become some sort of underground community or try to skirt the law. I admit that I did not understand the full scope of ITAR restrictions (I thought it was a simple exportation issue), so I took your advice and read through the full text.
I was suprised at the amount of info that ITAR covers and the fact that the restrictions on publishing technical data already apply to everyone. The real shocker, however, came when I learned that the only reason online technical firearm discussions are allowed right now is because no one thought to say (until now) that the internet is part of the public domain. Basically, we've all been enjoying a loophole ("the internet" is not specifically listed as an example of what's considered "in the public domain" in the current text) and now it's being closed. Yeah, it sucks, but since "the internet" and "public domain" go hand in hand, it's kind of hard to argue that the proposed changes don't make sense.
I was suprised at the amount of info that ITAR covers and the fact that the restrictions on publishing technical data already apply to everyone. The real shocker, however, came when I learned that the only reason online technical firearm discussions are allowed right now is because no one thought to say (until now) that the internet is part of the public domain. Basically, we've all been enjoying a loophole ("the internet" is not specifically listed as an example of what's considered "in the public domain" in the current text) and now it's being closed. Yeah, it sucks, but since "the internet" and "public domain" go hand in hand, it's kind of hard to argue that the proposed changes don't make sense.
Charley C
Member
Exactly what we need, USAF Vet! Extremely well written! (Have it copied ) Now....where do we send it? (a link would help )
Charley C
Charley C
JRH6856
Member
Charley C, Link is in post #6. Follow it and click Comment Now button.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
