14 ms·
I think this is the main content of the law. (Everything below is quoted.) --- Section 3. Right to compute Government actions that restrict the ability to pr
by dynm 11mo ago
I think this is the main content of the law. (Everything below is quoted.)
---
Section 3. Right to compute
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.
---
Section 4. Infrastructure controlled by artificial intelligence system -- shutdown.
(1) When critical infrastructure facilities are controlled in whole or in part by an artificial intelligence system, the deployer shall ensure the capability to disable the artificial intelligence system's control over the infrastructure and revert to human control within a reasonable amount of time.
(2) When enacting a full shutdown, the deployer shall consider, as appropriate, disruptions to critical infrastructure that may result from a shutdown.
(3) Deployers shall implement, annually review, and test a risk management policy that includes a fallback mechanism and a redundancy and mitigation plan to ensure the deployer can continue operations and maintain control of the critical infrastructure facility without the use of the artificial intelligence system.
- BirAdam 11mo agoI feel like this was a mistake: “must be limited to those demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest in public health or safety” So, public health or safety, in the hands of a tyrant how broad can that get? I imagine that by enshrining this in law, Montana has accidentally given a future leader the ability to confiscate all computing technology.
- ralusek 11mo agoIt appears to be a law that is simply adding restrictions to what the state can do (like the first amendment, the best sorts of laws IMO). It’s not granting people limited rights. Any existing rights people had under the fourth or first example, for example, are still in place, this just sounds like further restrictions on the state.
- terminalshort 11mo agoWhat are rights besides restrictions on the state?
- mpalmer 11mo agoThis is how laws are written. A court would determine whether the state is abusing or violating this public safety carve-out.
- zbrozek 11mo agoAnd this exact method is how we got minimum lot sizes, setbacks, FAR, and a burgeoning affordability and homelessness crisis. It's a blank check.
- mpalmer 11mo agoYes, the ability to litigate is key. Only a few can afford it.
- shortrounddev2 11mo agoSeems like a lazy way to write a law. Basically just gives any governor whose party controls the supreme court a blank check. The law should qualify what public safety means
- kingkawn 11mo agoYou want discretion for judges so that they can respond to the problems of their era wisely rather than rigidly applying the ideas of another time without nuance
- jfengel 11mo agoUnless those judges themselves have a fondness for an imaginary "great" time, and will apply their reasoning in a way that just happens to fit their ideology. Law is either rigorous or it's not. When I'm told that the law is against me but gosh darn it the law is the law, I grow resentful of the "discretion" reserved for some but not others.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- noir_lord 11mo agoIn the hands of a tyrant all laws can be arbitrary/ignored because that is a key part of what makes them a tyrant. Almost every part of government is in isolation a single point of failure to someone with a tyrannical streak, it's why most democracies end up with multiple houses/bodies and courts - supposed to act as checks and balances. So this law wouldn't alter the outcome in the slightest.
- raw_anon_1111 11mo agoHow has that been working in the US where both the legislation branch and judicial branch have willingly given their authority to the executive branch?
- noir_lord 11mo agoYou would think the fact that I put "supposed to act as checks and balances." in my post would answer that but apparently not.
- SV_BubbleTime 11mo agoYes. That has been a problem. Several states outright ignored the scotus Bruen decision.
- Retric 11mo agoYea a Supreme Court ruling 110 years after a law passed only for them to reverse course 2 years later. Surely that’s based on the constitution and nothing else.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- SV_BubbleTime 11mo agoIs your argument that you should only listen to Supreme Court judgments that you agree with? Or is it that they have some settling in time before you need to actually pay attention to them?
- SilverElfin 11mo agoAgree - it feels a lot like emergency measures, which are broadly abused at every level of the government and by both major parties.
- BirAdam 11mo agoYeah, so much that my feel is this law basically gives the state of Montana the right to confiscate computing equipment rather than the right to of the owner to have and use it. I understand that the intent of those involved in passing this was to protect civilians from the state, but such a broad and unspecific carve out just makes me think that a radical from either side could paint with quite a broad brush. “Who’s the terrorist today?” Kind of thing.
- catlover76 11mo ago[dead]
- captainkrtek 11mo agoDo tyrants care about law? They find ways to work around law, write new law, and rule by decree. Democracy is largely following norms and tradition of respecting the people and laws, but it can also be ignored when those in power shift.
- dvntsemicolon 11mo agoI see your point, but a tyrant doesn't need to follow laws in order to do tyranical things
- ethin 11mo agoThis phrasing is not by itself unusual; this almost mirrors the requirements for strict scrutiny.
- singron 11mo agoThis is essentially the "strict scrutiny" standard, which governments have to achieve in order to violate your strongest constitutional rights (e.g. 1A). If you don't spell it out, then it might be delegated to a lower standard like "rational basis".
- simplulo 11mo agoCorrect.
- simplulo 11mo agoI know what you mean, but this is actually as strong as a protection in Montana (and probably elsewhere) gets. The burden is high. Montana's RTC bill had strong and competent libertarian input.
- BriggyDwiggs42 11mo agoSo this is probably just to attract datacenters with the promise there will be no recourse for the local environmental consequences and the horrible noise for neighbors.
- andai 11mo agoDoes The Hum fall under the 1st Amendment? ;)
- Spooky23 11mo agoThat’s no hum, it’s the sound of shareholder value.
- dweinus 11mo agoExactly. All of the people in comments here thinking this has any impact on right to repair or open source are thoroughly kidding themselves. Lawmakers don't get out of bed in the morning to fight for nerds or the working class.
- soupy-soup 11mo agoThis is exactly what's happening. There are some huge data center projects in progress in Montana.
- xorcist 11mo agoThat's .. unexpectedly broad? A strict interpretation of that would mean no gaming consoles and certainly no iPhones. Their fundamental promise is a gatekeeper that restricts a lot of things that are not only legal but many customers want to do, including trivial things like writing their own software.
- qnleigh 11mo ago> Government actions that restrict the ability to privately own or make use of computational resources If the government tried to block you from installing certain apps on your phone, that would fall under this law. Apple as a private company can still block whatever they want.
- XorNot 11mo agoIt does get a little interesting to imagine the interface here though: if I circumvent those restrictions, a strict reading would be that I'm allowed to because the mechanism by which Apple would stop me would be through the State. Which in turn would put it in conflict with the DMCA.
- anikom15 11mo agoThere’s no conflict. DMCA trumps state law.
- benatkin 11mo agoThat seems like a correct interpretation and I don't like seeing it spelled out like this in a law. It seems more like a CAN-SPAM act than a step in the right direction.
- yason 11mo agoIf that's the gist of it, then: > Government actions that restrict the ability to privately... This seems weirdly backwards. The main problem is not generally what government can and wishes to restrict, it's all the proprietary/private restrictions such as not being able to run whatever code you want on hardware you own. The bill does nothing to address the actual rights of citizens, it just limits some ways government can't further restrict the citizens' right. The government should be protecting the citizens' digital rights from anyone trying to clamp them down.
- BrenBarn 11mo agoThat's the notion of "rights" we have in the US though. It's the same with the Bill of Rights. It's true some states do go further and bestow more affirmative rights. But it's deeply ingrained in US political thought that "right to do X" means "government won't stop you from doing X", not "government will stop anyone who tries to stop you from doing X".
- gameman144 11mo agoThis seems to have the positive effect that patching applications on your own device (a la Revanced patching Spotify) appears blessed, since government prosecution would need to demonstrate a public interest case, if I'm reading this correctly.
- samdoesnothing 11mo agoNo, the problem is the extent to which private parties can use the power of law to legally restrict your usage of property you own. And that's the reason it's a right. If you don't like the restrictions a product has you can simply not purchase the product, no "right" has been infringed.
- makeitdouble 11mo ago> you can simply not purchase the product You should explain how you'd see the majority of the population not buying a smartphone from a major brand.
- singron 11mo ago"lawful" seems like an enormous loophole that makes this seem vacuous. If the government makes what you are doing unlawful, then it can be restricted. How would the government restrict you from doing something lawful in the first place? A bill of attainder? That's already illegal.
- stephenlf 11mo agoIt gives a legal foothold to those who would challenge later laws, akin to the bill of rights. Believe it or not, courts will honor that kind of thing, and many legislators act in good faith (at least at the state level).
- throwaway384638 11mo agoHaving dealt with lawyers for the past few months this is design
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- halfcat 11mo ago> If the government makes what you are doing unlawful, then it can be restricted Always been the case. An interesting question you might explore, is whether rights exist. And the question is not whether they ought to exist.
- antonvs 11mo agoOf course rights exist, as a social construct.
- halfcat 11mo agoYes, rights are real in the way ideas are real, for what that’s worth. They’re not guarantees, as many tend to view them. They only become tangibly real when those in power allow it. More of a temporary gift, quickly taken away when those in power are supplanted by a tyrant. The interesting angle to me is that the same ideas seem to be sort of “inevitably re-emergent”. They return, even after generations of tyranny, where no one alive in society has been handed these ideas we call rights. So it’s more of a temporary gift that we should appreciate while we have it, which is forever at risk of being taken away, but which will always re-emerge as long as there are conscious beings capable of suffering.
- wseqyrku 11mo ago>revert to human control within a reasonable amount of time. They are going to seriously let it lose, when we talk about "revert to human control within a reasonable amount of time".
- biztos 11mo ago> revert to human control within a reasonable amount of time “You have 15 seconds to comply.”
- einpoklum 11mo agoSo, the bill: * Reaffirms (state) government power to restrict individuals in computing * Suggests that when a restriction infringes on your rights, but not on some specific fundamental rights, then then governmenty actions need not be limited. * Legitimizes the control of infrastructure by artificial intelligence systems. * Mostly doesn't distinguish between people and commercial/coroprate entities: The rights you claim to have, they will claim to also have. Wonderful...
- vrighter 11mo agoSo it's just a lot of hot air, simply because it is not the government that is restricting our right to compute. But the device makers, and software developers. Google deciding to monopolize app installations is a restriction on computing. Not the government. Device makers locking bootloaders is a restriction on computing. Not the government. Bank applications refusing to run unless running on a blessed-by-google firmware on a device with a locked bootloader is a restriction on computing. Not the government.
- votepaunchy 11mo ago> So it's just a lot of hot air, simply because it is not the government that is restricting our right to compute. But the device makers, and software developers. No, it is only the government which can restrict these rights through violence and the threat of violence. Sony cannot restrict you from buying an Xbox or Nintendo.
- vrighter 11mo agoBut sony, microsoft and nintendo all heavily restrict what you can use their computer for, and what software you can run on it. This is not a free-market issue. Yes, I am still free to buy another device. But if all device makers heavily restrict access, then this is a bunch of feel-good nonsense.
- anikom15 11mo agoYou are also free to alter the device in any way you want as long as it doesn’t start emitting radio waves.
- vrighter 11mo agoModifying the hardware != running the software I want on the hardware I own. So yes, your last statement is correct, but utterly irrelevant to this discussion.
- cestith 11mo ago