this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2025
68 points (88.6% liked)
Hardware
4116 readers
179 users here now
All things related to technology hardware, with a focus on computing hardware.
Rules (Click to Expand):
-
Follow the Lemmy.world Rules - https://mastodon.world/about
-
Be kind. No bullying, harassment, racism, sexism etc. against other users.
-
No Spam, illegal content, or NSFW content.
-
Please stay on topic, adjacent topics (e.g. software) are fine if they are strongly relevant to technology hardware. Another example would be business news for hardware-focused companies.
-
Please try and post original sources when possible (as opposed to summaries).
-
If posting an archived version of the article, please include a URL link to the original article in the body of the post.
Some other hardware communities across Lemmy:
- Augmented Reality - !augmented_reality@lemmy.world
- Gaming Laptops - !gaminglaptops@lemmy.world
- Laptops - !laptops@lemmy.world
- Linux Hardware - !linuxhardware@programming.dev
- Mechanical Keyboards - !mechanical_keyboards@programming.dev
- Microcontrollers - !microcontrollers@lemux.minnix.dev
- Monitors - !monitors@piefed.social
- Raspberry Pi - !raspberry_pi@programming.dev
- Retro Computing - !retrocomputing@lemmy.sdf.org
- Single Board Computers - !sbcs@lemux.minnix.dev
- Virtual Reality - !virtualreality@lemmy.world
Icon by "icon lauk" under CC BY 3.0
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sounds like a load of nonsense. They'd have to somehow get this code into your slicer.
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 I fdm printing, but they have a section about that in the paper, so I guess they at least have thought about it.
So if anyone anneals their part, this fingerprint goes away.
Also these are still made of petrochemicals and thus easily incinerated during disposal
Seems similar to 2D printers. It shouldn't be that hard honestly. Sure, it's probably very prone to errors, but if it repeats over the entire print then the errors should average out.
2d printers already print yellow dots which contain information about the printer for tracking purposes.
The question isn't whether a manufacturer would play ball (or be compelled to) it's whether it's possible to do in a way where the information persists and doesn't compromise the functionality of the print.
I think it's bad, to be clear. I just think it's not unreasonable to imagine manufacturers including that capability from the factory.
Except 3d printing has a much bigger open source community than 2d printers have.
There's already software out there that can optimize the output file of a slicer - effectively rewriting the gcode. Removing any watermarks at the code level seems pretty trivial, even if every single slicer company relented and added this function
Presumably this would be handled by the printer firmware and just slightly change the extrusion rate, regardless of the gcode.
Easily solved by using open-source firmware.
That's true, and that also goes for printers. However most people will use it out-of-the-box. The people who want to avoid tracking, yeah, this won't do shit.
Which manufacturers are you talking about? The ones making the electronics without firmware? The open source firmware which anyone can install or modify? The open source web interface that anyone can install or modify? The open source slicers where anyone can use any slicer they wish to (and also are used to generate gcode used on multiple different machines)?
There is simply no point in this chain where something like this would be enforceable
Can you share which electronics don't have firmware? I'm using a BambuLabs machine that certainly does. Any machine that's supposed to work right out of the box would.
I understand you to be saying it's possible to 3D print with an open source stack, which is good it's at least possible vs most 2d printing. But that's a very different thing than imagining a scenario where most 3d printers come from a store with this sort of fingerprinting enabled.
Just search for 3d printer board. As just one example the SKR range of boards from Bigtreetech com without firmware.
Most consumer printers these days come with open source firmware on them. For example the Ender series, or all creality printers, all Prusa printers, etc.
Bambulabs is just one of the very few examples that run a closed source firmware.
I see what you're saying, thanks. They come with firmware, but it's open source. What I'm saying is it's not hard to imagine a scenario where governments say "for public safety, we now require every manufacturer to modify their firmware to include this fingerprinting" And even in that scenario individuals could still probably manage to install clean versions. But it becomes much more of a nuisance and the most common arrangement would be people deciding it's not worth the hassle.
And it all could be circumvented by sanding and just using the part to make molds for resin etc.
Fuzzy skin, ironing, compile your own firmware, swap mainboards...this is a pointless solution that can only result in worse parts for the least technical users.