Don\u27t Bring a CAD File to a Gun Fight: A Technological Solution to the Legal and Practical Challenges of Enforcing ITAR on the Internet

This Essay begins by outlining Cody Wilson’s motivation to found his organization, Defense Distributed, and the organization’s progress toward its goals. Then, Part II provides a brief overview of the protracted legal battle between Wilson and the State Department over the right to publish Computer-Aided Design (CAD) files on the internet that enable the 3D printing of guns and lower receivers. Part III.A takes a brief look at whether these CAD files are rightly considered speech at all and, if so, what level of protection they might receive. Part III.B then addresses the problem of even asking whether the files are speech subject to regulation. Part III.B also highlights the similarities between regulating internet speech and regulating public-order crimes, focusing on the impact that enforcement problems in both areas can have on government credibility. It ultimately questions whether these legal battles provide any utility to society. In Part IV, this Essay argues that the State Department is utilizing old and incongruent regulations to enforce practically unenforceable laws to little or no effect, ultimately hurting the credibility of the State and martyring people like Wilson. This Essay advocates for a solution that focuses on 3D printer manufacturers as a control point for gun manufacturing. This solution avoids First Amendment issues and makes import and export control a physical reality, rather than an unbounded problem relegated to an open internet. This Essay looks beyond a judicial solution to practical solutions that stem the growth of in-house manufacturing of weapons

Don\u27t Bring a CAD File to a Gun Fight: A Technological Solution to the Legal and Practical Challenges of Enforcing ITAR on the Internet

This Essay begins by outlining Cody Wilson’s motivation to found his organization, Defense Distributed, and the organization’s progress toward its goals. Then, Part II provides a brief overview of the protracted legal battle between Wilson and the State Department over the right to publish Computer-Aided Design (CAD) files on the internet that enable the 3D printing of guns and lower receivers. Part III.A takes a brief look at whether these CAD files are rightly considered speech at all and, if so, what level of protection they might receive. Part III.B then addresses the problem of even asking whether the files are speech subject to regulation. Part III.B also highlights the similarities between regulating internet speech and regulating public-order crimes, focusing on the impact that enforcement problems in both areas can have on government credibility. It ultimately questions whether these legal battles provide any utility to society. In Part IV, this Essay argues that the State Department is utilizing old and incongruent regulations to enforce practically unenforceable laws to little or no effect, ultimately hurting the credibility of the State and martyring people like Wilson. This Essay advocates for a solution that focuses on 3D printer manufacturers as a control point for gun manufacturing. This solution avoids First Amendment issues and makes import and export control a physical reality, rather than an unbounded problem relegated to an open internet. This Essay looks beyond a judicial solution to practical solutions that stem the growth of in-house manufacturing of weapons

Wild Westworld: Section 230 of the CDA and Social Networks’ Use of Machine-Learning Algorithms

This Note argues that Facebook’s services—specifically the personalization of content through machine-learning algorithms—constitute the “development” of content and as such do not qualify for § 230 immunity. This Note analyzes the evolution of § 230 jurisprudence to help inform the development of a revised framework. This framework is guided by congressional and public policy goals and creates brighter lines for technological immunity. It tailors immunity to account for user data mined by ISPs and the pervasive effect that the use of that data has on users—two issues that courts have yet to confront. This Note concludes that under the revised framework, machine-learning algorithms’ content organization— made effective through the collection of individualized data—make ISPs codevelopers of content and thus bar them from immunity

Don\u27t Bring a CAD File to a Gun Fight: A Technological Solution to the Legal and Practical Challenges of Enforcing ITAR on the Internet

This Essay begins by outlining Cody Wilson’s motivation to found his organization, Defense Distributed, and the organization’s progress toward its goals. Then, Part II provides a brief overview of the protracted legal battle between Wilson and the State Department over the right to publish Computer-Aided Design (CAD) files on the internet that enable the 3D printing of guns and lower receivers. Part III.A takes a brief look at whether these CAD files are rightly considered speech at all and, if so, what level of protection they might receive. Part III.B then addresses the problem of even asking whether the files are speech subject to regulation. Part III.B also highlights the similarities between regulating internet speech and regulating public-order crimes, focusing on the impact that enforcement problems in both areas can have on government credibility. It ultimately questions whether these legal battles provide any utility to society. In Part IV, this Essay argues that the State Department is utilizing old and incongruent regulations to enforce practically unenforceable laws to little or no effect, ultimately hurting the credibility of the State and martyring people like Wilson. This Essay advocates for a solution that focuses on 3D printer manufacturers as a control point for gun manufacturing. This solution avoids First Amendment issues and makes import and export control a physical reality, rather than an unbounded problem relegated to an open internet. This Essay looks beyond a judicial solution to practical solutions that stem the growth of in-house manufacturing of weapons