3D printing is killing our Privacy!!11!



  • Okay, the title is a little over the top. Nevertheless I stumbled over this article and was very puzzled because I did not get the point.

    As far as I could see, the linked article does not include any reference to the paper itself, I tried to find it by google. This Paper seems to be the base of the above mentioned article.

    What so ever, I read half through the paper and I had to stop because there was so much BS in it.

    As far as I understand, the "thread" that is depicted in this paper are visual detectable (and uniq) patterns on 3d prints. But why should this be a threat? I absolutely do not get it. This paper seems to me like someone without any knowledge on 3d printing (or even barcodes) tried poorly to make up a threat.

    Can anyone of you explain what's the point of this paper? Am I missing anything?



  • @justus2342 said in 3D printing is killing our Privacy!!11!:

    Can anyone of you explain what's the point of this paper? Am I missing anything?

    There is the old saying: when you only have a hammer every problem looks like a nail. (or something like that) I believe this article is the same .. It is some "gender study" student trying to do science



  • @justus2342 it would be possible to place a watermark into a 3d printed object, like laser printers place a mark on printouts. But it's an advantage of firmware like reprapfirmware to see whether such a watermark is inside the code and to be sure that this is not the case. The article wants to create fear for people who don't have the necessary knowledge.



  • @JoergS5 said in 3D printing is killing our Privacy!!11!:

    @justus2342 it would be possible to place a watermark into a 3d printed object, like laser printers place a mark on printouts.

    Yes, but there is no difference to any other manufactured object, is there? There is nothing that stops anyone from print/laser/engrave "watermarks" in/on any object, is it?

    As far as I get it there is nothing special on the recognition of those 3d printed watermarks. I can not think of any real world scenario, where unintended "scanning"/recognition would work.



  • @arhi don't do that. Don't belittle people because they don't fit into your neat little boxes.

    The paper isn't even trying to "do science", it's suggesting a legal framework for protection of privacy in regards to watermarks. I have issues with the intro to the paper, if this was a paper I was reviewing, I'd be sending it back as "needs work" referencing un-cited sentences such as "tracking
    technologies that underlie 3D printing". But the body of the paper seems (I've only skim read), reasonably thought out. I think it applies more broadly than 3D printing, as watermarks or tracking IDs can be and are placed on non 3D printed products, but it's a start.



  • Fingerprinting of manufacturing devices due to either artificial (yellow dots on color printers) or natural mechanical identifiers (i.e., typewriter peculiarities) is old hat. Of course it can be applied to 3d printers, and of course with enough technical acumen you can circumvent identification or at least make it more difficult (vapor smoothing ABS comes to mind, or just using variable tuning tweaks to introduce chaffing).



  • this can and will happen in commercial all in one products.

    but as long as you have open source, this will not happen there.



  • Is just me that sees the irony if not hypocrisy?

    An article entitled quote......

    "3-D printing poses a threat to people's privacy, experts warn"

    .........has a pop up message saying quote.....

    " This site uses cookies to assist with navigation, analyse your use of our services, and provide content from third parties. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use."



  • @keyz182 said in 3D printing is killing our Privacy!!11!:

    @arhi don't do that. Don't belittle people because they don't fit into your neat little boxes.

    Not doing that, I could not care less in what box they want to fit, but I hate being made fool of and that article is trying exactly that

    • experts warn 😄 😄 what experts? WC internet surfers? I'm really getting tired of ppl becoming experts after "intensive googling during no2" talking about stuff they know %$#^# about spreading FUD
    • overly eager regulators trying to regulate every %$# aspect of our lives using BS to get there, usually using "privacy" and "security" as keywords but only protecting the interest of 1%
    • this modern policy of getting offended when someone has a different opinion

    The web article is pure clickbait BS and the "research paper" looks like one of those "to be able to have tenure on the university I must publish anything" so grab any BS topic, write it in a form of research paper and publish...

    Think about few things

    • invisible watermarking on 3d printing parts (FDM, SLA, SLS ) - how the f is it going to be invisible, you can preview both the "source" file and the slice document and "invisible" errors in the file are not nearly something you can reliably output with any of the 3d printing tech
    • tracking materials ... you leave your contact info when you buy roll of plastic ?

    Comparing this to a part done by other techniques that has nothing to do with 3d printing where, since forever, each batch of injection parts will have serial number of not every part, 2D printers that leave ID code on the paper, copiers that store on internal drive every paper you ever copied...

    @oliof said in 3D printing is killing our Privacy!!11!:

    Of course it can be applied to 3d printers, and of course with enough technical acumen you can circumvent identification or at least make it more difficult (vapor smoothing ABS comes to mind, or just using variable tuning tweaks to introduce chaffing).

    1. there's no way one can put it on the part without you seeing it
    2. before you print your stl, you open it and you remove the "watermark" if you don't want watermark

    In theory the firmware / slicer would be capable of embedding stuff you don't know about (like velocity painting or some programmable / detectable imperfections) but since the user is the one operating firmware and slicer theres no point, the object maker can't track anything... and reverse tracking "who printed this" again don't really work on that level, especially with open source technology, so again infinetely more secure and more private than your average 2D printer



  • @arhi you seem to be assuming home/personal 3D printing (at least, that's what it sounds like, correct me if I'm wrong). I think this is targeted at industrial 3D printing (e.g. I'm not likely to be printing blood vessels at home). With that in mind, all aforementioned watermarking techniques are viable, as the manufacturer is in control of design through to print, and they (or state actors they must legally oblige) are the ones wanting to add these tracking facilities. However, as you and I both mentioned above, this isn't unique to 3D printing. Many things have serial numbers that could be tracked printed on them. Anything with any kind of (2D) printed pattern/design/whatever on them could have traditional (2D) printer tracking dots on them. But just because it's applicable elsewhere doesn't undermine what the paper is getting at. I agree that the article is clickbait, but I believe the paper itself to be reasonable.

    They're also talking about a voluntary code of conduct, not regulation. The core of the whole thing being simply "let's all agree to make our watermarks plainly visible". That's it. That's all they're trying to achieve.

    You speak of FUD yet...

    this modern policy of getting offended when someone has a different opinion

    Seems the only one offended by a difference in opinions here is you.



  • I think he's read "Rule 34" - by Charles Stross, a dystopian near future novel involving 3Dprinting - it's a good read.



  • @keyz182 said in 3D printing is killing our Privacy!!11!:

    I think this is targeted at industrial 3D printing

    Well, how is industrial 3D printing type of manufacturing any different than any other industrial manufacturing? 99.9% of the items you have in your house are trackable (they have at least serial number).

    Medical stuff is all laser marked with a serial number, every screw in your new knee, every metal, plastic, rubber, silicone part is tagged so it can be tracked. There's no "watermarking", there's a plain and simple serial number.

    I do not see a single thing that makes 3D printing in the industry different from any other manufacturing process in the industry with regards to privacy.

    I'm assuming "personal" as with personal you have some idea of privacy that is maybe false.

    voluntary code of conduct

    it's how it starts :), and I assume we can all agree that noting "voluntary" can stop anyone wanting to perform "evil" (can't remember the proper English word but I'm sure you understand the meaning) act.

    IMHO this is just another attempt to sneak more DMCA BS into the whole infrastructure pushing for DMCA capable formats to became new standard under the pretense of "privacy". I hope, I really do hope, I'm wrong.

    Seems the only one offended by a difference in opinions here is you

    Offended?!?! What would give you that idea? Takes a lot to offend me, and for someone, I don't even know, that would be quite an impossible task. I'm just stating what I think and why I think that, and just like I don't expect that to offend anyone I don't get offended by what anyone else think. BTW "policy of getting offended" was not directed towards participants of this topic but as a general thing being overly present in lot of modern BS articles like the one we are talking about (not directly present in this one but close).



  • @stewwy said in 3D printing is killing our Privacy!!11!:

    I think he's read "Rule 34" - by Charles Stross, a dystopian near future novel involving 3Dprinting - it's a good read.

    Did he ever finish the 3rd book? I understood the halting state and rule34 were supposed to be part of trilogy...

    Cory's "makers" might be more close to reality I fear 😞



  • The first paragraph was enough to label the article garbage.

    And that is 10 seconds of my life I will never get back.

    Frederick



  • He abandoned it sometime after 2018 according to his wiki.



  • @stewwy said in 3D printing is killing our Privacy!!11!:

    He abandoned it sometime after 2018 according to his wiki.

    Who abandoned what?

    Frederick



  • @fcwilt said in 3D printing is killing our Privacy!!11!:

    @stewwy said in 3D printing is killing our Privacy!!11!:

    He abandoned it sometime after 2018 according to his wiki.

    Who abandoned what?

    Frederick

    Charles Stross, his trilogy .. he gave up on the third book, looks like it 😞



  • I didn't read this whole thread, are they taking about forensic fingerprinting a 3d print to tell who's machine it came from?

    They've been doing that for years. They did it with typewriters.



  • The experts do not believe self-regulation would be sufficient without oversight. The new regulatory body could be organized by existing licensing organizations such as the UK Copyright Hub, National Copyright Administration of China, the UK Intellectual Property Office, the Copyright Tribunal, or Information Commissioners Office.

    Dr. Griffin said: "Digital watermarking and 3-D printed products present a future where objects can be searched for with nothing more than the equivalent of a Google search word. 3-D printing and digital watermarking specifically has not been considered by any government or regulatory body, nor has there been any regulatory research carried out on the matter. Our proposals help to ensure the protection of individual privacy in an increasingly digitized world."

    "Oh noes! Someone's gonna print my thing and I'm not gonna get paid for it!"

    The only other thing I can imagine from that article, which had quite a few glaring typos such as:

    Legally governing 3-D printing is not straightforward as the underlying technologies are so precise. With 4-D printing objects print themselves and the use of augmented and virtual reality allows for enhanced tracking.

    What? So someone in biomed 3d prints me some new arteries for some reason and they get installed. They propose all the tracking with copyright orgs so that the design of my arteries is protected?

    Lol no. They want to have a formal way to sue the pants off amateur CAD designers for infringing copyright / patents whether intentionally or not.

    . . . a new voluntary code of conduct to protect people's privacy, and a regulatory body to provide guidance and oversight.

    Oh yeah, a regulatory body to just provide guidance and oversight. Right up until the lobbyists walk into parliament offices / congress. The pandering is not subtle.

    Not sure if this paper is "I need to keep my tenure" or "please hire me away from this University"

    Some more goodies:

    . . . to trace, track and observe objects, which can reveal an incredible amount of information about the users of such content."

    Oh yeah, good point. Like being seen using an Adroid phone? Or wearing Airpods? Or the carrier branding on your phone's exterior? How about the information your personal transport provides about you? Brand names on clothes? What about the home you live in?

    The experts carried out 30 in-depth interviews with representatives from Chinese 3-D printing companies.

    Mmhm. Best to consult the experts when it comes to privacy issues / tracking / intellectual property rights.

    The article is kind of gross. The linked article gives it all away:

    Academics will analyse what the impact of this system would be on copyright law. Credit: Shutterstock

    So this article is a remix of another article which is itself a follow-up to a third article. That's quality content right there.



  • @deadwood83 said in 3D printing is killing our Privacy!!11!:

    They want to have a formal way to sue the pants off amateur CAD designers for infringing copyright / patents whether intentionally or not.

    exactly .. trying to sneak DMCA under veil of "privacy protection"


Log in to reply