3D Printer Surveillance

New York is contemplating a bill that adds surveillance to 3D printers:

New York’s 20262027 executive budget bill (S.9005 / A.10005) includes language that should alarm every maker, educator, and small manufacturer in the state. Buried in Part C is a provision requiring all 3D printers sold or delivered in New York to include “blocking technology.” This is defined as software or firmware that scans every print file through a “firearms blueprint detection algorithm” and refuses to print anything it flags as a potential firearm or firearm component.

I get the policy goals here, but the solution just won’t work. It’s the same problem as DRM: trying to prevent general-purpose computers from doing specific things. Cory Doctorow wrote about it in 2018 and—more generally—spoke about it in 2011.

Tags: 3d printers, guns, laws, privacy, surveillance

Posted on February 12, 2026 at 7:01 AM • 15 Comments

Comments

BCS • February 12, 2026 9:50 AM

Would the world be better off or worse off if the lawmakers actually understood what they were trying to regulate?

On the one hand, there would be fewer laws proposed that will never have any chance of being anything more than expensive virtue signaling. On the other, it will be harder to measure the hubris of the law makers.

Also, I think xkcd had a nice concise take on this: https://xkcd.com/1425/

RightToComputeRightToPrint • February 12, 2026 10:20 AM

The maker community ought to get a lot more vocal about this, remind the legislators that a 3d printer can be cobbled together from basic parts by just about anyone. Any printer infected* with this sort of “DRM” can have its control board ripped out and replaced by an arduino with a couple of stepper dual h bridge boards which can run existing freedom-respecting firmware. There’s no need for advanced firmware hacking to rewrite a DRM-infected machine’s existing firmware, just a full transplant of the circuit board. The community needs to make it very clear that this sort of tyranny will not be obeyed. If lawmakers want to clamp down on gun violence they should target the supply of ammunition for restriction. Printed plastic isn’t a suitable material for something which has to survive as harsh an environment as the chamber of a gun must cope with, but whereas people have occasionally printed items which they call guns (but which are frankly more dangerous to the maniac firing them than to any intended target), nobody has ever or will ever print the bullet-plus-propellant combination required for a round of ammo. If the crooks running New York (and the crooks running Washington state too, they are trying the same thing, I doubt it is a coincidence, the pro planned obsolescence lobby must have gotten at both legislatures at once) want to push for this, they need to find themselves being frustrated at every turn by people who are cleverer than them in every way. I wonder if New York will soon be home to shops selling three entirely separate products,each of which definitely isn’t supposed to be bolted to another even though the holes would line up perfectly, one of which is a handheld plastic extrusion 3d pen, another is a hotplate and the other of which is an x-y-z linear stage assembly (core-xy, bedslinger, whatever). If I was in that benighted state, no way would I ever obey, this, along with protecting the right to general purpose computing (another Doctorow talking point) is a hill to die upon. The right to be able to make little plastic trinkets (ok, there’s a lot more use than trinkets but everything one makes is still a plastic item, plastic is great for little brackets and adaptors and household modifications and small hobby projects. NYC tyrants, please understand, plastic is still no good for guns) is more important than the supposed authority of a government.

*infected really is the right word, because the only way anything like that can happen is by a printer uploading every file to the cloud to ask for permission whether that file is ok, and it won’t be able to stop people making bad thinga, all it will do is prevent people making repair and replacement parts for shoddily made consumer items with planned obsolescence

Rontea • February 12, 2026 10:39 AM

Requiring 3D printers to include “blocking technology” for firearm components is a classic example of security theater that risks far more than it solves. Once you embed surveillance and control mechanisms into general-purpose fabrication devices, you are sliding toward the same brittle, easily bypassed model that DRM imposed on computers. The danger isn’t just that it won’t stop people determined to print weapons—it’s that it creates a framework for monitoring and restricting all forms of 3D printing, chilling innovation and personal freedom. Security controls that are invasive and unenforceable ultimately weaken trust without meaningfully improving safety.

Tony • February 12, 2026 12:05 PM

Isn’t there already a precedent. Colour copiers won’t make a copy of something they identify as “currency”. [Not that this is any kind of good reason to mess with 3-D printers].

Agammamon • February 12, 2026 12:23 PM

Do these people not know that there are plans for easy building from base parts some pretty capable 3d printers? To the point that if you can assemble legos and manage a pre-built 3d printer you have the skills to build and operate your own.

https://vorondesign.com/

That’s just one of the options.

Worst case, you buy a shitty 3d printer to print out the plastic parts for your really good build-your-own printer – no gun check necessary.

And what are they going to do about desktop CNC?

Clive Robinson • February 12, 2026 12:26 PM

@ BCS, ALL,

You ask,

“Would the world be better off or worse off if the lawmakers actually understood what they were trying to regulate?”

People forget if you give someone power then they will use it regardless of ethics or morality.

It’s one of the reasons we have “makework” so people can feel that they have status but in reality are just being given hand outs.

It’s part of the,

“Laws are for the obayance of fools and the guidance of wise men.”

The problem is many do not know which they are…

Hence you assume the worst and hope you get better.

Some years ago I noted here two things had to happen to legislators,

1, Every law even that for murder would require a “sunset clause”, such that it would require to be debated and revised (the EU has this for regulations).

2, The money and status should be taken out of politics by total transparency.

Hopefully then without lobbying or future pay off “nest feathering” legislation would not be for sale by behind the scenes auctions.

Agammamon • February 12, 2026 12:31 PM

Tony • February 12, 2026 12:05 PM

Isn’t there already a precedent. Colour copiers won’t make a copy of something they identify as “currency”. [Not that this is any kind of good reason to mess with 3-D printers].

Yes. But at least with that you have a fairly limited sample of currencies to store in memory – there’s a massive variety of ways to make a bullet go bang.

Its like ‘microstamping’ – something that is theoretically possible but no one knows how to make it work. But politicians like to just shrug their shoulders and say ‘nerd harder’ as if that is all it takes. They do not live in the real world.

Clive Robinson • February 12, 2026 12:47 PM

@ ALL,

Do not forget the lessons of E2EE!

The legislators wanted the impossible to “protect the children” or similar nonsense.

When even their own security forces told them it was a very bad idea they did not give up.

It was only when “client side Scanning” of sufficient capability built irremovably into the OS became a reality did they let up on fighting against E2EE.

This same battle and outcome is what is going to happen with 3D printing.

Because it’s not about “think of the children” that’s just the excuse. It’s in reality about protecting corporate profits and the energing,

“You will own nothing economy”

Where you will have to work yourself to death just to make the 1% of the 1% into “Rent claiming Barons”.

Because your future is not as “slaves” but “surfs” unless they find as Cotton Barons did that slaves could be used as collateral to raise money to buy more to gain unearned rental income…

If you have not seen the signs of this building then,

“You’ve been to busy on fools errands.”

Which is part of the plan.

Jordan Brown • February 12, 2026 12:55 PM

Colour copiers won’t make a copy of something they identify as “currency”.

Currency is generally specially marked with a pattern that copiers recognize.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation

Kevin • February 12, 2026 2:03 PM

Highly capable color printers and copiers can recognize EURion, a very simple pattern to deny printing currency (and certain other documents). It’s also embedded in Photoshop, but not in open source image editors.

This (and the “yellow dot” tracking) did not come about through lawmaking, but rather was a voluntary measure by the printer engine manufacturers due to political pressure.

Anonymous • February 12, 2026 2:24 PM

If they really wanted to make an impact on gun violence, or even a non-impact on gun violence, they could start with regulating real guns. Perhaps this is protectionism for established arms manufacturers?

lurker • February 12, 2026 3:09 PM

@Anonymous

Quite right Sir. But could you please explain to me the purpose of the first and third commas in the Second Amendment? I know some States ommitted them in ratification.

Smith • February 12, 2026 6:46 PM

This again?

Anyone remember the laws for “automatic braking in cars”? The car has to recognize it’s going to hit something, and automatically brake. I appreciate President Trump canceling that.

My car has an imminent collision alarm. It goes off all the time. Curvy roads, with concrete dividers or just a double yellow line, sensor sees the concrete or another car or even just a leaf, and warns me. But it doesn’t brake! Hasn’t helped me yet. Just a distraction. Lots of false alarms. But if it had auto-braked, cars behind me would have plowed straight through me. My car wouldn’t have lasted a month.

Government law-makers don’t understand it’s an impossible problem. Same with 3D-printing… Oh they could block the file based on a checksum. And somebody modifies the file ever so slightly, and now it works…

Idiots!

Winter • February 12, 2026 11:38 PM

@lurker, anonymous

the purpose of the first and third commas in the Second Amendment?

A lot of linguistic ingenuity can be unleashed on the Second Amendment to tease apart the original intentions of the authors.

But that is entirely unnecessary.

The mere fact that the amendment starts with A well regulated Militia, being necessary for a free state should be clear enough about how the drafters of the amendment saw the regulation of gun ownership.

Any interpretation that ignores these first four words betrays the Constitution.[1] And it must be said, many betray it with the fervor of the true fanatic.

[1] This mechanism of ignoring unwanted parts of sacred texts in extremist reasoning is widespread. For instance, Christians worship the ten commandments, but many also publicly support the death penalty (thou shalt not kill), pray to statues, crosses (make carved images, idols), and advocate tax evasion (thou shalt not steal, Render to Caesar…).

V • February 13, 2026 5:12 PM

Based on the care manufacturers take for commodity goods a 3D printer that is online could probably be hacked to ONLY print guns.

3D Printer Surveillance

Comments

Leave a comment Cancel reply