Supporting argument 02
Geometry Cannot Determine Legal or Moral Context
An additive-manufacturing file describes shape and production instructions, but it does not reveal a user’s authorization, intent, ownership, or final use. Even firearm-detection researchers acknowledge this limitation. Joshi et al. note that designs may be separated into ordinary-looking parts, making it “unrealistic to expect a classification model to determine whether a nut or screw is nefarious” (Joshi et al. 2). Geometry can indicate resemblance or risk, but it cannot independently supply the context needed for a moral or legal judgment.
Test the legal context
Intellectual-property disputes make the problem especially clear. A file that resembles a commercial product does not show whether the user created it, obtained a license, is repairing an owned product, or is conducting research. Goodyear explains that fair use protects “socially beneficial uses such as research, teaching, news reporting, and commentary” yet is “notoriously difficult to define” because it depends on several contextual factors (Goodyear 1978). Some functional designs may not qualify for copyright protection at all. As Osborn argues, “Tangible objects dominated by utilitarian concerns do not receive copyright protection. Neither should the corresponding DMF” (Osborn 7). A geometry classifier cannot resolve those questions merely by comparing shapes.
Respect users as persons
This limitation also raises a Kantian concern. Schur’s account of Kantian ethics rejects conduct that demeans human beings or reduces them to tools for accomplishing another objective (Schur 71). A system violates that principle when it treats every owner as a presumptive wrongdoer and sacrifices privacy, lawful use, or control of purchased equipment for easier enforcement. Protecting the public and creators is legitimate, but users must not be treated merely as instruments of that policy.
Require context and a meaningful appeal
Geometry may therefore justify a warning or closer review, but resemblance alone should not serve as a verdict. When danger or infringement depends on licensing, assembly, intent, ownership, or use, the institution imposing the restriction must establish that context and offer a meaningful appeal. Under the Proportionate Refusal Framework, machine-level refusal based solely on geometry is disproportionate whenever the system cannot reliably determine the legal and moral circumstances of the print.