When Tinkering Becomes Illegal
from the too-easy-to-break-the-law dept
USA Today's Andrew Kantor has written a column that is basically a defense for everyone's "freedom to tinker." He goes through a variety of situations where the law is becoming increasingly gray and murky (and sometimes passing over into the ridiculous), and points out why it doesn't seem right that we shouldn't be able to modify or tinker with stuff that we've legally bought. He points to things like using an open WiFi network or making a backup copy of a DVD (and ditching the forced-watching of the commercials at the beginning in the process) and wonders how that's different from fixing his air conditioner or changing his oil. However, the point he makes at the end may be the most important. He's basically worried that people are coming to accept the fact that you don't own what you've bought -- and that makes people willing to accept laws that outlaw your freedom to tinker: "But as technology marches on, our laws don't always march with it. They're written by men with agendas that are different than ours -- men who don't understand (or have the incentive to understand) what they're trying to legislate. So chances are there will come a day when there won't be room for men to meddle with technology. The sad thing is that we'll think what they do is against the law in the first place."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's Too Late for the UK
Hansard
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's Too Late for the UK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegal Tinkering=Stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal Tinkering=Stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal Tinkering=Stupid
The catch is you have to notify the government of your doing so, fill out a form including a signature of your local Chief Law Enforcement Officer and then pay the government $500 for a tax stamp that authorizes your manufacturing of a Class III weapon.
Failure to do that is what makes the tinkering illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal Tinkering=Stupid
The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) banned the manufacture of any new machine guns for the public. Only military, and LEOs can order new ones from a manufacturer. Also, all Form 1 applications sent to the ATF for an individual to create their own MG will be denied.
The only new MGs being made outside the factory are by Class 02 FFLs and any gun they make is not transferrable to an individual. It is considered a 'post sample' MG and can only be transferred to another dealer who has a letter from an LEO agency requesting a demo of that particular MG.
Why do you think an M16 that used to sell for $900 before 1986 is now worth $13,000 ? Its because there is a fixed supply and increasing demand due to the fact that no new MGs can be made.
P.S. Its a $200 tax on each transfer, not $500
P.P.S. There is no such thing as a 'Class III' weapon. M16s are considered 'Title II' weapons. Dealers that pay their SOT tax are considered Class 3 dealers....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal Tinkering=Stupid
Or perhaps you've made a false dichotomy and failed to realize that "tinkering" refers to the vast gray region of DIY spanning "out of box" and "building from scratch"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal Tinkering=Stupid
--
At what point does the tinkering become illegal? When machining the various mechanisms while the casting the explosives or when the fissile material is put in place?
--
Here's an example of how the laws are driven. If I modify a set-top box to obtain free programming, is it the possession of the box or the theft of program material that should be illegal? One is easy to prove, the other is difficult.
In either case unless you go into business selling modified boxes you're unlikely to be pinched.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal Tinkering=Stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal Tinkering=Stupid
Than that someone is very clever, and society has FAR more to worry about than a simple nuclear bomb.
I fear someone who can take a car, and after a conversion scene, make a nuclear bomb. Makes McGyver and the A team look like panies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal Tinkering=Stupid
If you own it I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to modify it with out making it illegal. Altering what you own should be allowed unless it specifically makes the item you are altering illegal.
Changing the scope on a weapon is legal isn't it? Do you need the government’s permission to take apart and clean a weapon?
Then why should taking care of, repairing or altering, what you own any different? I don’t need a permit to clean my house. Why should I need permission to take care of my electrical wiring? Instead of repairing my computer myself, will the government soon make me take it to am ‘approved’ shop every time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal Tinkering=Stupid
Yes, if I buy something, it's mine to do with as I please. Whether that thing is a gun, a DVD player, a car, a CD, what have you. There are already hundreds of laws that prohibit us from doing harm to others. Laws against murder, laws against pollution, laws against theft.
Until such time as I do something with it that causes harm to another (kill someone, take their property, etc.) nobody should have any reason to say boo.
They may not have realized it at the time, but when the NRA fights to retain the right to own a certain type of gun, or to modify it, they're also indirectly fighting for similar rights when it comes to more mundane products.
We're used to product x being banned, so it's no big deal to ban product y as well. We're OK with prohibiting tinkering with guns, it'll be no problem to also prohibit modifications to our DVD player, PVR, computer, house as well.
After all, think of the children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal Tinkering=Stupid
It shouldn’t even be illegal to possess the gun, what should be illegal is harming someone or their property with it.
Oh wait - that ALREADY IS ILLEGAL.
Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bigger overall concern
In the USA we do seem to be at a crossroads. What matters more, individual freedom or the 'greater good' which too often seems to be what best suits the profit margins of corporations? Again and again the country seems to be going the way of 'to Hell with your freedom' and 'do [whatever] for the children' and corporate profits. I'm sadly beginning to believe the old adage is correct: Totalitarian countries will move steadily towards freedom, while free countries will move steadily towards Totalitarianism.
Should we all be able to tinker with the things we buy? Hell yes! Will the government tend to allow it now that corporations have far more power than the public? Highly unlikely. Will the public ultimately wake up and correct things before we live in the equivalent of the old USSR? Stay tuned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The sale of extended warranties
the warranty is voided. Remove a simple sticker, warranty is voided. Same market value for less
manufacturer responsablity, small warranty period, extendable by purchase from second party insurance co.
Economic soundness (profit from profit).
The U.K. is not a freedom based country.
Nor is the U.S.
We are (like it or not) Priviledge based societies.
You can not give up a non existing right!
only suffer the removal of priviladges you're
not willing to pay for...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]