Top
Best
New

Posted by bilsbie 16 hours ago

Montana becomes first state to enshrine 'right to compute' into law(montananewsroom.com)
359 points | 184 commentspage 2
perihelions 9 hours ago|
The major context of this law is regulations like Executive Order 14110, of 2023 (since rescinded),

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_14110

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38067314 ("Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (whitehouse.gov)"—337 comments)

colingauvin 14 hours ago||
>Government actions that restrict the ability to privately own or make use of computational resources for lawful purposes, which infringes on citizens' fundamental rights to property and free expression, must be limited to those demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest in public health or safety.

....what does this say about DRM enforcement?

nayuki 13 hours ago||
Exactly. I was hoping that this law would be the pushback to the overzealous prosecution of DeCSS, people who defeat DRM locks in order to lawfully back up the multimedia data that they already paid for, etc.

Somewhat related: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_to_Read

I also wonder what the impact of the law is on TPM chips on computers (restricting your ability to boot whatever OS you want), the locked-down iOS mobile app store, etc.

sweetjuly 12 hours ago|||
Most of the laws which touch on DRM are federal, and so they override any state laws due to the supremacy clause.
derbOac 13 hours ago||
I admit I'm not knowledgeable about this law but as it's written it seems fairly meaningless to me, as it could be interpreted in many different ways, and the exclusion is a hole you could drive a metaphorical truck through.
culi 6 hours ago||
Montana, which has the 4th largest population of millionaires despite being the 7th lowest populated US state, passes a law to prevent AI regulation. I don't think that it's a coincidence that many of the wealthy individuals that have flocked to Montana made their wealth in the tech industry
sandworm101 13 hours ago||
Question nobody wants to talk about: will this prevent courts from issuing "no computer" restrictions on persons convicted or being investigated for crimes involving computers?

I have seen clients go for many years without cellphones because a judge cassually attached a "no computer" protective order. It is hard enough finding work as a convict or person under investigation, but 10x harder for those without cellphones and email.

zootboy 13 hours ago||
It does look to be a nudge in that direction, but it's not a slam-dunk. From my non-lawyer reading of the text, it seems like it would depend on how well you can argue that a total ban is not "narrowly tailored."
FpUser 13 hours ago||
These restrictions must be scrapped completely. Along with this barbaric "criminal record" they delegate big chunk of the population to an underclass, well, unless they are rich.
twodave 6 hours ago||
I disagree for most crimes at least. Most crimes are either going to be some form of illegal dishonesty (theft, fraud, etc.) or violence. I would hope the company I work for is able to screen individuals for such behaviors before hiring them. “Willing to lie/cheat/steal for gain” in particular is such a huge red flag that any company who hired someone and ignored such red flags could reasonably be sued for negligence whenever that employee inevitably commits another similar crime. There are examples of this in the news literally today.
sandworm101 3 hours ago|||
"Most" crimes are posession and/or status crimes. Either you are caught with something illegal (drugs, guns etc) or you violate some sort of protective restriction (parole violations for guns/drugs/alcohol). That, and just generally being drunk or high, represent the bulk of crimes that land people in jail. No dishonoesty or violence is required.
FpUser 2 hours ago||
And who says violence should haunt the person for the rest of their lives? It could be a single act in unfortunate circumstances. Person pays for it once and should be free to live the rest of their lives as normal unless they reoffend. Except some special circumstances companies should have no fucking business about private lives of their employees.
FpUser 4 hours ago|||
What a pile of crap.
lr4444lr 11 hours ago||
It's a nice gesture, but I'm not sure it will matter. AI is likely already on the Federal radar for superseding regulation.
eikenberry 10 hours ago|
As long as laws are restricted to business services it shouldn't conflict. This is the right for citizens to use computation, business regulation is always a layer on top of that.
Sleaker 8 hours ago||
Interesting, has the EFF done a writeup/opinion on this legislation yet? I tend to trust them on breaking things down from the legalese and implications.
teucris 10 hours ago||
I’m all for this movement provided it’s actually focusing on the rights of individuals rather than empowering corporations to own and operate massive amounts of computing power unchecked. When I first read the article, I frankly assumed this was meant to limit regulation on AI. From what I’ve read in the law that doesn’t seem to explicitly be the case, but given the organizations involved, I fully expect to see more in that vein.
threecheese 13 hours ago||
Any idea how “citizen” is defined here? Does this apply, like speech (and campaign donations), to corporations?
sandworm101 13 hours ago|
Yes. In written laws "citizen" generally means any person and/or organization subject to the laws of the state. It doesnt mean just living people who can vote.

Many a young law student has pontificated that as non-citizens, visiting tourists have no rights. There is no more loaded a word in US politics, and none more malleable under the law, as "citizen". It means something different in every context.

zkmon 12 hours ago||
I mean, without this law, are the people not allowed to use computing? What exactly is the difference it brings? Does it force government to provide computing to all citizens?
manbart 11 hours ago|
Makes it harder for people to oppose construction of data centers in their back yard
More comments...