Whose Fault Is It?

Posted by shush

March 18, 2015

Months ago I got to watch a very interesting episode of a TV series that showed a 3D printer being used to print a part of the body that a child needed to survive. Years ago, the same concept was presented in a movie that showed a whole mask being printed in 3D so that someone else can use it to imitate another person.

They were concepts then, they are available for public purchase in the present. It’s an amazing invention. I even thought that maybe it could actually be used to print internal organs that ordinary people needed to survive instead of waiting for donors to provide the much needed organs for transplant by anyone who needed it from anywhere. So if someone needed a heart or a gall bladder or a lung or something, they just have it printed for replacement of the ailing body part. And it could be afforded by even the lower income groups.

Such are the thoughts of someone who looks at the invention as merely a tool to heal, cure and even possibly help people live.

Then I got to watch another TV episode where it showed a 3D printer being used to print a plastic gun that was used to kill someone. And then I realized that an invention is only good if the person using it has good intentions. Otherwise, it could be easily used to hurt others.

To be able to print a real plastic gun that could be used to cause harm just by clicking a button is scary. To be able to do the same thing on a 3D printer from the comfort of your home by your children who thinks the printed plastic gun is just a toy to play with is another matter.

Is there a problem with putting out this kind of product in the market for just about anyone who can afford it to buy?
I don’t think so.
I think it should be allowed to be sold in the market for anyone who can afford it.
That’s progress and economics working together.

Is there a problem with printing a weapon using the 3D printer?
I don’t think so, as long as it is regulated and production can be tracked.

If someone gets hurt with the weapon that was printed using the 3D printer, whose fault would it be? Would it be the fault of the people who invented the 3D printer? Would it be the fault of the person who printed the weapon? Would it be the fault of the person who used the weapon to hurt someone?

I am not a lawyer. I am just a mother with an opinion about it. And I think those at fault are the following:

- The person who used the weapon printed using the 3D printer to hurt someone.

- The person who printed the weapon using the 3D printer for not making sure that the weapon was stored some place where it would be safe from people who might misuse it. Why do I say this? Because it is possible that the person who printed the weapon had the intention of just using it as a decorative object, or a collection for display in possibly a museum of sorts, or some other similar non-violent intention.

- The people who created the 3D printer who did not think of placing safety nets in the software or hardware used by the printer such as, but not limited to, a function automatically disabling the printer’s functions if a request for printing of any type of weapon is made, or biometrics type security for accessing the printing functions for printing weapons to identify whoever it is who is printing the weapon that is eventually stored in a database within the printer’s hardware itself, or that printing of weapons are only allowed if the user is online and access codes have to be requested from the printer’s manufacturers to identify whoever it is who is printing the weapon that is eventually stored in a database in the printer manufacturer’s servers. I know there are many other safety nets that could be added here. It doesn’t matter if it would cost more, because if the user can afford to buy the 3D printer, then the user should also be able to afford the added costs of adding a “print a weapon” feature. That way, if a crime is committed it would be easier to identify who printed the weapon using the 3D printer.

- And lastly, the people who make the laws about regulations on electronic devices who I suppose exists everywhere as there are people in charge of regulating food products and medicines. Because when a new electronic device is invented, it is sent to some authorities to be checked on whether it would interfere with the frequency and use of other surrounding electronic devices or communication wavelengths or frequencies. Which pretty much means, anyone can use the 3D printer while watching TV, listening to the radio, playing video games, and use other such digital or analog devices. They are sent there because there are laws saying they have to be sent there before being made available to the public for purchase and use. Why should they be at fault too?

Because they make the laws that everyone has to follow to be able to make, buy and/or use just about anything. And if they turn a blind eye to the fact that the device that is going to be placed in the market is capable of creating weapons that is literally untraceable and immediately accessible to the people, and let it be available to buy anyway, then they should also be held accountable for whatever crime is committed using the device stated. Technically, the product would not be allowed to be sold in the market if they don’t allow it to be sold. But in all fairness to those who created it with the best of intentions, they should allow it to be sold to the public with certain conditions and rules to adhere to. Such as the safety nets that are supposed to be in place as I have suggested above.

We usually look at crimes from the standpoint of whose fault it is directly. We do not look at the big picture and try to see if we could have prevented it from happening in the first place by putting in the necessary regulations for everyone to follow.

Here’s an example of preventive regulations.

If we make and implement regulations that state that manufacturers of plastic bags are required to only produce biodegradable plastic bags, then we wouldn’t have a hard time trying to figure out how to handle all the trash that is accumulated from non-biodegradable plastic bags. And it would also eliminate the need to pressure the people to segregate the trash, which more often than not they don’t do, or find landfills big enough to contain all the non-biodegrable trash. Because the reality is, we need plastic bags.

But we shouldn’t make the change overnight. We should give the manufacturers time to use up all their non-biodegrable inventory and slowly transition to the biodegrable resources. They should also be given the literature and raw material sources they need for the transition. Would the cost of the biodegrable plastic bags be more expensive than the non-biodegrable ones? I think over time it would conform to the law of supply and demand wherein, since everyone is already using biodegradable plastic bags, the prices of both the raw materials and the distributor and/or retail prices would eventually lower dramatically.

We usually ask whose fault it is, if we didn’t prevent it from happening. Or we prevented it from happening but there were still some loopholes that weren’t addressed. As it is, such misuse of electronic devices can be prevented, if someone had the guts to make sure the preventive measures are put in place, not by a single person, but with a concerted collaborative effort.

Computers, Keeping Safe, Money, Streetwise

Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.