New York Governor Kathy Hochul challenged Cody Wilson, who announced the “Hochulization” tool aimed at circumventing the state law that bans the production of weapons with 3D printers. Wilson aims to prevent the state’s mandatory detection systems from flagging weapon design files as weapons by changing their file hashes with the tool he released last week. This process does not change the functionality of the resulting product.
Hochul said that producing weapons with a 3D printer is illegal in New York and that she would not allow Wilson’s initiative to undermine the state’s efforts. Wilson plans to apply the technique to an archive containing more than 200,000 weapon designs and parts and to make the system open source.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation also voiced concerns about mandatory digital surveillance and “censorship software” on 3D printers. A manufacturer in Kentucky, meanwhile, highlighted the gray areas covered by 3D-printed weapon bans with an e-reader case that resembles a weapon but does not function. Hochul said she would assess how such designs should be regulated, but would maintain New York’s ban.
The governor said that background checks, regulation and registration requirements apply to gun ownership, while the use of 3D printers is not banned outright. She argued that the rules have made New York one of the states with the lowest gun homicide rates in the United States.
The Verge writer Nilay Patel said the reaction to the issue similarly reflected concerns about digital surveillance, in common with bipartisan objections to Flock cameras. Hochul acknowledged that excesses in surveillance should be overseen and that the cameras should be stopped if they are misused.
Why it matters
This development shows that oversight of production with 3D printers is directed not only at the printed object but also at the digital files that create it. The fact that a tool that changes file hashes can preserve the product’s function leaves open the question of what technical detection mechanisms actually prevent and what criteria they rely on. While the debate pits regulators seeking to limit weapons production against groups concerned about mandatory digital surveillance and censorship software, it makes the boundaries of the rules visible for 3D printer users. In particular, designs that do not work but resemble weapons raise the question of whether the ban will cover only functional products or formal similarities as well. New York’s decision to retain the existing ban leaves unresolved how these gray areas will be regulated.