New York Proposes Mandatory Firearm Detection in 3D Printers: Security and Privacy Concerns

New York Proposes Mandatory Firearm Detection in 3D Printers

New York state lawmakers have included a controversial provision in the 2026-2027 executive budget bill (S.9005 / A.10005) that would mandate "blocking technology" in all 3D printers sold or delivered within the state. The requirement, buried in Part C of the bill, would force manufacturers to integrate software or firmware capable of scanning every print file using a "firearms blueprint detection algorithm" and blocking any designs flagged as potential firearms or firearm components.

Technical and Policy Implications

The proposed legislation reflects broader efforts to curb the illicit production of firearms using 3D printing technology. However, cybersecurity experts and digital rights advocates argue that the approach is technically flawed and legally problematic.

• Detection Challenges: Firearm components can be modified, segmented, or obfuscated in print files, making reliable detection difficult. Similar attempts at digital rights management (DRM) have historically failed due to circumvention techniques.
• False Positives/Negatives: A detection algorithm may incorrectly flag legitimate objects (e.g., mechanical parts, tools) or miss modified firearm designs, leading to unintended consequences.
• Privacy Risks: Mandating real-time scanning of print files raises concerns about user surveillance, data collection, and potential misuse of sensitive intellectual property.
• General-Purpose Computing Restrictions: As noted by cybersecurity expert Bruce Schneier and digital rights advocate Cory Doctorow, attempts to restrict general-purpose computing tools (like 3D printers) for specific use cases have consistently failed due to technical workarounds.

Impact on Makers, Educators, and Manufacturers

The provision could have far-reaching consequences for:

• Hobbyists and Makers: Restrictions on printing non-firearm objects (e.g., custom tools, prototypes) could stifle innovation.
• Educators: Schools and universities using 3D printers for STEM programs may face unnecessary barriers in accessing or modifying print files.
• Small Manufacturers: Compliance costs and potential legal liabilities could disproportionately affect small businesses.

Expert Criticism and Historical Precedents

Critics argue that the proposal mirrors failed DRM strategies, such as:

• Printer Tracking Dots: In 2018, Cory Doctorow highlighted how yellow tracking dots in printer outputs enabled surveillance—a precedent for embedded monitoring in hardware.
• General-Purpose Computing Restrictions: Doctorow’s 2011 talk at the Chaos Communication Congress (28C3) warned against legislative overreach in restricting computing devices, a concern that applies to this 3D printer proposal.

Next Steps and Recommendations

Security professionals and industry stakeholders should:

1. Monitor Legislative Developments: Track amendments to S.9005 / A.10005 as it progresses through the New York legislature.
2. Assess Technical Feasibility: Evaluate whether firearm detection algorithms can be effectively implemented without excessive false positives or privacy risks.
3. Engage in Public Comment: Advocate for alternative solutions, such as education, enforcement, or voluntary guidelines, rather than mandatory surveillance tech.
4. Prepare for Compliance Challenges: Manufacturers and users should assess potential legal and operational impacts if the bill passes.

While the policy goal of reducing 3D-printed firearms is understandable, the proposed solution raises significant technical, ethical, and legal concerns that warrant further scrutiny.