Are you serious? That kind of widespread banning of information is fundamentally incompatible with a democratic society. It's absolutely preposterous to think

Are you serious? That kind of widespread banning of information is fundamentally incompatible with a democratic society. It's absolutely preposterous to think that I could prevent someone from downloading and using a database of pictures, EM emissions, basically anything that a government deems dangerous, via threat of State violence. That is as draconian and authoritarian as it gets. How do you even enforce such a law? You would need unrestricted access to every system. Otherwise, you are only harming legitimate researchers and enthusiasts, not criminals. Criminals are still going to access and download whatever the hell they want. How do we determine what can "help" AI and what can't? Is it the number of sources you have that should be restricted? Is there a committee that decides this? Are the proceedings open to civilian involvement? Who decides what is okay and what isn't? Can corporations or government organizations (military) apply for this data? Why can groups of people with lots of money and infrastructure have it, but not me? How does this prevent a further segregation of socioeconomic classes? Comparing nuclear "source material" to random data like images, video, metadata, etc is downright deceitful. If you aren't being purposefully deceitful, you really need to reflect upon exactly how such a law would be carried out, the logistics of its enforcement, and the limitations. It's a logistical nightmare and is infinitely more complex to enforce than it should be, not to mention downright anti-democratic. Damn right it shouldn't happen.