you know how easy it is to circumvent this?
relatively easy, its relatively easy. now you know.
this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2025
49 points (91.5% liked)
3DPrinting
19732 readers
88 users here now
3DPrinting is a place where makers of all skill levels and walks of life can learn about and discuss 3D printing and development of 3D printed parts and devices.
The r/functionalprint community is now located at: or !functionalprint@fedia.io
There are CAD communities available at: !cad@lemmy.world or !freecad@lemmy.ml
Rules
-
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
-
Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
-
No porn (NSFW prints are acceptable but must be marked NSFW)
-
No Ads / Spamming / Guerrilla Marketing
-
Do not create links to reddit
-
If you see an issue please flag it
-
No guns
-
No injury gore posts
If you need an easy way to host pictures, https://catbox.moe/ may be an option. Be ethical about what you post and donate if you are able or use this a lot. It is just an individual hosting content, not a company. The image embedding syntax for Lemmy is 
Moderation policy: Light, mostly invisible
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Luckily we have open source firmware and we can build our own printers.
Most ghost guns are not 3D printed so this is nothing but security theater and an invasion of privacy.
Given the diy-nature of almost every 3d printer, I can't see this being very useful for identifying prints.
Exactly my thoughts. I got my machine in 2017 and have replaced enough parts to make a ship of Theseus argument. Most of them weren't even due to wear, I just like rebuilding her. On top of that, every other printer I know is either all diy or kit built. I can't imagine this will stop anyone who genuinely wants to do harm.
Here's the paper where they explain it. Basically, they make subtle fluctuations in layer height, adding or subtracting small amounts that are not visible to the naked eye, to encode 0s and 1s. So, maybe in principle this could run at the firmware level on your printer. Then, someone can use a microscope to read off the code from pieces of the printed part.
I would have some doubts about how reliable this is, given the relatively large tolerances in fdm printing, but they have a section about that in the paper, so I guess they at least have thought about it.
Fluctuations in layer height that are not visible? Dude, most printers are not even able to achieve a layer height consistency that would be invisible to the naked eye if they wanted to.
Plus what about adaptive layer heights that automatically change based on the features of each layer?
This has to be borderline useless as a positive identification tool, given that people can...
- Make their own models
- Run open source slicing software
- Inspect their own gcode
- Print from flashcard on a 100% offline printer with known clean firmware, such as the most common Ender 3.
How about they just focus on other methods of apprehending violent criminals and leave hobbyists alone.
This is right, for as long as the fdm printer hobbyists can avoid the lockdown and enshittification that some printer brands are definitely pushing. The value of this paper, for it's authors, seems more like a proof of concept: fingerprinting is possible. And I think that's actually it's same value for hobbyists: the problems with a closed system and proprietary printer firmware are not hypothetical.
So when I turn on variable layer height this whole thing goes out the window. Or if I post process and sand the parts. Oh I know what if I use a slicer and firmware like klipper to bypass everything. No 3d printer that isn't locked down already by closed ecosystem will never have this "code" in the parts.
Sand paper wouldn't really help. They could just cut a part in half. But yeah no way in hell this will ever end up in any of the open source printer firmwares. So it's a moot point.
The fact that this could only work in 100% locked down ecosystems was my thought too. About cutting the part up, that seems to be what this particular paper is most proud of: they did a bunch of math to make some codes that they could still figure out even when they were cut into pieces and mixed up---like if a person broke their printed part after using it. Sort of like error-correcting codes I guess, but able to be reassembled from fragments.
Why would you cut it into pieces. Just burn it i'd say...
