3D gun plans website suspends downloads

[Howard2k]

You aren't American are you?

No, but it's irrelevant.

Are you stating that you don't believe that any information should be restricted?

 

[45WinMag]

You're equating a print at home firearm to an artificial limb?

What about nuclear suitcase plans? Or plans for the Grand Gulf 1 power plant? Or the nuclear missile codes?

Obviously there are legitimate reasons to censor information.

You're conflating national secrets protected by classification with commonly available technical information. For example, plans for a power plant are going to be protected by a Department of Energy classification level. Anyone with access who publishes this information will be prosecuted for mishandling of classified information and violation of a nondisclosure agreement. However, someone without such access who designs and publishes theoretical and virtually identical information is free to do so.

Basically, the government can only restrict its own proprietary information, and does so through classification levels.

 

[Howard2k]

You're conflating national secrets protected by classification with commonly available technical information. For example, plans for a power plant are going to be protected by a Department of Energy classification level. Anyone with access who publishes this information will be prosecuted for mishandling of classified information and violation of a nondisclosure agreement. However, someone without such access who designs and publishes theoretical and virtually identical information is free to do so.

Basically, the government can only restrict its own proprietary information, and does so through classification levels.

Right. So we agree, there is some information that should be censored.

 

[OHIOSTEVE]

No, but it's irrelevant.

Are you stating that you don't believe that any information should be restricted?

No , actually it is relevant. Not because you do not have the right to express an opinion but because the mindset is actually different a lot of times.

 

[Howard2k]

No , actually it is relevant. Not because you do not have the right to express an opinion but because the mindset is actually different a lot of times.

Hey I totally agree with you on the mindset approach.

I've said before on this very forum that if I lived in the US I'd likely have a CCW permit, though I have no desire for that here.

I still maintain that I would also at the same time believe that:
i) there are some people who should not have firearms, and
ii) there is some information that should be censored.

 

[45WinMag]

Right. So we agree, there is some information that should be censored.

No. Classification and censorship are not the same thing. Classification protects proprietary government information. Censorship is the restriction of privately held information.

 

[Shred Astaire]

No. Classification and censorship are not the same thing. Classification protects proprietary government information. Censorship is the restriction of privately held information.

Semantics. Restricting information to the public. Is that better?

 

[Freddy G]

Everyone should have the right to be dangerous.

 

[OHIOSTEVE]

Freedom comes with risks.....eliminate the risk and eliminate freedoms. I prefer the risk of freedom.

 

[Howard2k]

No. Classification and censorship are not the same thing. Classification protects proprietary government information. Censorship is the restriction of privately held information.

No offence, but I think you're reaching there.


Classified Information is information that is restricted by law. There's nothing at all to suggest that only proprietary information can be classified as Classified Information.

Censorship is the restriction of information.

When information is determined to be Classified Information, it is censored.

Proprietary relates to ownership. I've never heard of any mandate that states that the government can only certify information as Classified Information if it's proprietary. And just thinking that through, it doesn't make sense. Countries share information between themselves. I think you're suggesting that if the UK shares its proprietary classified information with the US, then the US cannot maintain the Classified Information status on that content since that information isn't proprietary to the US. I doubt very much that this is the case.

 

[Howard2k]

Freedom comes with risks.....eliminate the risk and eliminate freedoms. I prefer the risk of freedom.

You don't have complete freedom. You can't do anything you want. You already agree that you need to follow a bunch of rules.

 

[Howard2k]

Anyway, I'm thinking I should quit while I'm winning don't want to get this canned. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Chango Malo]

anyone focusing on the gun part of this is watching the wrong hand.

This is the only real takeaway from this thread. THIS IS THE POINT, FOLKS.

I know in the US your have your "untouchable" amendments etc. Yes, even those should change if needed.

No.Inalienable rights are just that.

I thought I told Howard not to discuss religious matters.

..Then he brings up Fender owners.

St. Leo, pray for us...

 

[Howard2k]

No.Inalienable rights are just that.

Oh jeez... No, they're not. We already established that.
Even in the US, there are some people who are not allowed to own firearms.

 

[OHIOSTEVE]

You don't have complete freedom. You can't do anything you want. You already agree that you need to follow a bunch of rules.

Lol..... you do not know me very well. The only restriction on my freedom should be your rights.

 

[Chango Malo]

Oh jeez... No, they're not. We already established that.
Even in the US, there are some people who are not allowed to own firearms.

Yes, they are indeed inalienable. That's the whole point of the Bill of Rights. Of course there are people who have given up their right to posses a firearm. Note that these people are themselves responsible for their inability to posses a firearm, not the governments. Big difference, but I don't expect you to admit that point.

 

[Howard2k]

Yes, they are indeed inalienable. That's the whole point of the Bill of Rights. Of course there are people who have given up their right to posses a firearm. Note that these people are themselves responsible for their inability to posses a firearm, not the governments. Big difference, but I don't expect you to admit that point.

I get it why you guys use that term and all, but that doesn't make it right.

inalienable means that it cannot be taken away or given away.

The right to self defence is an inalienable right. You always have the right to defend yourself (appropriately).

The right to own firearms is not inalienable. This right can be taken away or *cough* given away *cough* as you might position it.

I think you're confusing the 2nd A with a human right to self defence. They're related, but they're not the same thing.

 

[45WinMag]

No offence, but I think you're reaching there.


Classified Information is information that is restricted by law. There's nothing at all to suggest that only proprietary information can be classified as Classified Information.

Censorship is the restriction of information.

When information is determined to be Classified Information, it is censored.

Proprietary relates to ownership. I've never heard of any mandate that states that the government can only certify information as Classified Information if it's proprietary. And just thinking that through, it doesn't make sense. Countries share information between themselves. I think you're suggesting that if the UK shares its proprietary classified information with the US, then the US cannot maintain the Classified Information status on that content since that information isn't proprietary to the US. I doubt very much that this is the case.

It is about ownership. The government can only classify information that it owns or controls. It cannot classify information held by private individuals because the government does not own it. Maintaining classification of foreign government information that has been entrusted to the control of the United States is not the same as the government declaring that it wants to suppress a private citizen's information and slapping a classification on it.

For instance, let's say the government has a bit of information we will call Document X. Now, let's also say the New York Times finds out the same information independently. The government cannot classify they information held by the NYT, even though the exact same information is considered classified when held by the government. In fact, a cleared individual would still be prosecuted for releasing Document X - even though the information is publicly available and can be freely disseminated by a non-cleared private citizen. Classification is about ownership (and by extension, control of information owned by another government that is entrusted to the US). I deal with this stuff every day.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wow, giving away more liberties...no thanks!

He's right, though. Not in this particular case, I don't think -- but some information is too sensitive to be public: intelligence sources, weapons design, warfighting contingency plans.

 

[Howard2k]

It is about ownership. The government can only classify information that it owns or controls. It cannot classify information held by private individuals because the government does not own it. Maintaining classification of foreign government information that has been entrusted to the control of the United States is not the same as the government declaring that it wants to suppress a private citizen's information and slapping a classification on it.

For instance, let's say the government has a bit of information we will call Document X. Now, let's also say the New York Times finds out the same information independently. The government cannot classify they information held by the NYT, even though the exact same information is considered classified when held by the government. In fact, a cleared individual would still be prosecuted for releasing Document X - even though the information is publicly available and can be freely disseminated by a non-cleared private citizen. Classification is about ownership (and by extension, control of information owned by another government that is entrusted to the US). I deal with this stuff every day.

Wait, did you just say "own or control". Sure, I grant you that. The government has to own or control the information. It's not exclusively about whether the information is owned by the government. If the UK is doing a military exercise in Syria and notifies the US, then the US may/should/will treat that information as classified. In this case I would argue that they may not own that information, but they do control it (from a possible distribution perspective).

In this case, as I have stated earlier, it's moot because the information is out there in the public domain.