• treadful@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    The bill text of SB-212 seems pretty reasonable. Basically just says the government needs a good reason to create regulations on computation.

    It even explicitly mentions good reasons may include things like fraud, deepfakes, and public nuisances of datacenters.

    As a Montanan, I’m cool with it. Guess we’ll see how it’s used.

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      24 hours ago

      I wonder if this would make it illegal to cut off someone’s internet if they are accused of piracy. Probably that sort of thing still goes.

      It might provide a protection against anti-circumvention laws and such; laws that make it criminal to mess with hardware DRM on your devices.

      • VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        21 hours ago

        My first thought was about potentially protecting encryption, with all the privacy-invading laws that are popping up here in the US and abroad, but after skimming through the bill it seems like they could still use the “but criminals use encryption” line

        • General_Effort@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          It wouldn’t be so easy. Such restrictions would have to be limited to those demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest.

    • Cooper8@feddit.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s too bad it leaves the door open for age verification requirements, but the language is overall pretty decent.