gun nutcases

Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 punks at tfwno.gf
Mon Dec 7 17:29:38 PST 2020



> >         You probably could get a working device and reverse engineer it while running, but that's a lot of work.
> 
> I feel like this point you make is a good example of a way we tend to
> move towards disagreement.
> 
> I was a software developer and inventor as a child.  I suspect many
> others on this list were too.  So, when I think of something
> complicated, I don't think of it as a lot of work.  I think of how it
> could be automated with code and robots (simply because that used to
> be my skill), to make it easy for everyone.  When you make new things,
> you do the work once, and then people can benefit from that work for a
> long time.


	Yes that is true, but there's a practical side to it. I bet the 'supply' of microcontrollers coming from dumpsters is pretty variable. You might be able to get a sizable amount of some particular model if you manage to get it from some particular mass produced item and so make the reverse engineering  effort worthwhile,  but that's different from randomly picking something out of the trash and being able to use it.

> 
> So, if somebody was struggling with an issue, when I was a teenager, I
> would make a new tool, to solve the issue.  That became really normal
> for me.
> 
> Because of my personal history, which I suspect to be common on this
> list, I wouldn't consider it being a lot of work to reverse engineer a
> chip, if I knew a way to do it, to be a problem.  I know there are
> many people who would desire to do it for fun, and once the problem is
> solved, everybody benefits.


	Fact remains, it is a lot of work, so it's less likely to be done. It requires specialized knowledge and equipment so the number of people who could do it is  small.


> 
> That philosophy is really core.  For free communities, it's pretty
> reasonable to plan on doing a bunch of wild new, really hard things.


	That is true, but it's different from "yeah 3d printers! yeah 'printed' guns! yeah...now what?" 

 
> I looked briefly for the article where hackers imaged the layers of
> chips and mapped all the semiconductors inside them, but I didn't find
> it.  It provided for extraction of private keys.


	Oh I've seen old articles about code being extracted from read protected pic microcontrollers. I bet it's a lot harder or impossible to do with 'modern' chips. (unless of course you are intel)



 
> >         https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/06/hackers-farmers-and-doctors-unite-support-for-right-to-repair-laws-slowly-grows/
> >
> >         notice that the de facto and legal situation is that technofascists have almost completely control. And the proposed way to 'fix' the problem is to try to patch the technofascist legal system.
> 
> The idea of making repairing stuff illegal is as ludicrous as the
> ownership of land.  

	
	Ownership of land is (a lot) less ludicrous than so called 'intelectual property' (HEY JIM BELL).
	
	At any rate, 'intellectual property' makes it hard for stuff to be repaired and it makes it outright 'illegal' in some cases. 

	My point here is that the problem is a political problem and that technical workarounds don't really solve the underlying political problem. 


> There are going to be people who just aren't going
> to respect it, because it's a basic survival thing for them.


 
> > > >         I've found a few microcontrollers but they are useless without manuals, even if the fuses were not blown.
> > >
> > > I found manuals on the website of the chip manufacturer.  I was able
> > > to order more chips from them, to experiment with, too, for
> > > cents-per-chip.
> >
> >
> >         All the mictrocontrollers I use were bought first hand. At least here there's no 'natural', dumpster-located source for them.
> 
> I think we were discussing the idea of pulling them from or using them
> in discarded devices, which I think is hard now because the tooling
> isn't common.

	
	The problem for me isn't tooling but actually getting a few pieces of any particular micro. I guess in the 'developed' world there's a lot more electronic garbage so it may be easier to find a 'supply' of a particular product that has a particular, documented micro. But still, if you want sizeable amounts of a particular component, it may not be easy to 'source' it from random trash.


> 
> > > > > but I understand that there is much better
> > > > > material available on how, nowadays 7 years later.
> 
> This quote you left was about glitching blown fuses to repurpose
> microcontrollers from other devices.
> 
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >         Actually as times goes by stuff gets more and more miniaturized and integrated...and becomes un-recyclable.
> 
> I didn't realise your reply wasn't really related to the quote.


	....not sure if you misread something ?



> > >
> > > Very precise tools needed eventually.
> >
> >
> >         the kind of tools that you won't find on a dumpster - the kind on tools that only govcorp has.
> 
> This goes back to being a hobby inventor as a child.  We can build
> these tools, if we want to.  Govcorp makes them incredibly
> inefficiently, wasting resources in order to try to make
> set-and-forget-profit-factories.  All these tools started as
> prototypes made by researchers and hobbyists, in small spaces,
> designed for the task at hand.


	True to some degree but you're not going to easily build (if at all) something like a  high frequency oscillocope in your garage. 


> 
> I don't know what kind of makerspace experience you have.  Here in the
> USA, you can find a metal mill that can cut metal precisely down to
> thousandths of an inch, for free, because they are left over from old
> wars.


	Well that pretty much proves my point? High precision equipment comes from govcorp, in this case, the worst of govcorp, the US MIC. You get the 'cheap' mill ONLY because 'they' feel like throwing it away. And wait, the most likely reason they throw it away is so that the govt can buy new mills that are 10x more expensive than they should be. In a word, corruption.

	

> 
> > > Of course, the scientific community/ies are thinking about all this
> > > stuff with a lot of potential wise deliberation.  Their power is just
> > > filtered by the journals, funders, institutions, and communities they
> > > work with.
> >
> >
> >         I don't think that's the case. The vast majority of members of the 'scientific community' are evil to the core assholes who know pretty well what they are doing.
> 
> Having spoken and worked with these people, what you say seems
> _mostly_ false to me, here, and it's surprising to me if you believe
> it.  Very few people seem to believe what you say here, to me.  I'm
> curious why you believe it.


	I believe they are evil to the core because what they do is evil to the core. The 'scientific community' are the technocrats in our lovely technocracy. 


> 
> > > >         Yeah, I don't disagree with the concept, but it's easier said than done.
> > >
> > > The concept of the puppet or of the printer?
> >
> >
> >         The concept/idea of recycling electronic devices.
> 
> Puppet says: learning to recycle electronics is better than throwing
> them out and playing video games.


	yeah. And don't throw away your video games. Recycle them too. 


> 
> > > Maybe I see where you're coming from better.  3d printers are used by
> > > people who don't need them, for fun.  So it's hard to use them where
> > > the concept would be needed; the concept isn't reasonably designed for
> > > a real-world community.  They're more like a daydream that is
> > > discovering the value of helpfulness but hasn't found it yet.
> >
> >
> >         What I was objecting to is the original claim
> >
> >         "this link helps technophiles make unlimited unregulated  firearms"
> >
> >         because while that's more or less technically true, it doesn't imply any kind of increased political freedom (which is ultimately what I care about).
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "political freedom" here.  For
> technophiles or others?


	Political freedom for everyone. People being able to print stuff at home (wheter they are 'technophiles' or not) doesn't equate with people being more free. 



> >
> >         Yes, there's a political side to it. But there's also a technical side. So called 3d printig is better suited for slow and small scale production. Mass production is likely to be more 'efficient'. Of course, decentralized and less 'efficient' producion is a trade off that allows people to gain more political freedom, but cnsumerist fucktards don't care about freedom.
> 
> You'd probably have to be a childhood inventor (geek) to see that
> using a 3d printer, you could make an automatic 3d printer that makes
> more 3d printers on its own, and then disassembles them when it's
> done.  It could make millions of something in a week.


	What I stated above is a technical fact. If anything, being a 'geek' means you have a  utopian and ultimately wrong view of how production works. 

	3d printers are inefficient, just like blockchains are inefficient but have other desirable properties.



More information about the cypherpunks mailing list