When a "right to..." law is passed, there is usually an accompanying narrative that explains a past injustice that will be corrected. Matthew Shepard hate crime, Civil Rights Voting act, etc.
The absence of such a story makes me think this law doesn't protect shit. What exactly did a Montanian get killed or arrested trying to do with a computer that is now protected? Can I use AI during a traffic stop or use AI to surveil and doxx governemnt employees? What exactly is the government giving up by granting me this right?
Or is this just about supressing opposition to data centers?
Yeah I think it's pretty obviously the AI industry trying to ban its own regulation
> Nationally, the Right to Compute movement is gaining traction. Spearheaded by the grassroots group RightToCompute.ai, the campaign argues that computation — like speech and property — is a fundamental human right. “A computer is an extension of the human capacity to think,” the organization states.
computation — like speech and property — is a fundamental human right
Computation however requires a vast supply chain where certain middlemen have a near monopoly on distribution of said "fundamental right". The incentives for lobbyists seems clear.
I don't necessarily disagree with the idea, but until profit is shared with taxpayers, this is a one-way transaction of taxpayers bankrolling AI companies.
I find your claim that there is a monopoly on computing laughable. No other technology has improved in quality or dropped in price as much as computers over the last 40 years. If this what you get from a monopoly, then we need more monopolies.
Modern semiconductor fabrication is a very narrow field.
As far as monopolies go I don't think it's our biggest concern, like you say.
If we want to continue to wage wars and seek conquest, it's not great to have it located in one/few countries. But instead if we want to work towards peace, we should continue breaking down barriers to trade (while maintaining protections for labor).
Looks like this one might be while in general the rule does not hold. Good regulations exist, and so do bad ones. Arguments without nuance often do more harm than good to your side.
Aggravatingly, some of it is. The organic food regulations are impossible for the small farmers who invented the idea. Only mega corps can do it, and their definition is not much better (if at all) than industrial farms.
It's still way better than Upton Sinclair's time. But it would be nice if the FDA and USDA were run by people who eat rather than sell food.
There are also laws about how fast you can drive to your restaurant and whether you can assault your employees once you get there. Neither of them have a place in a conversation about the efficacy of food safety laws, nor do the building permits you mention. We have different laws to regulate different domains and they exist largely because someone cut corners in the past and people literally died.
> Neither of them have a place in a conversation about the efficacy of food safety laws
They do because these fees are paid to engineers and architects as well as to the local health authority to certify that the restaurant is up to local "health codes", keeping in mind this is pre-lease and pre-construction. They regulate the size of pipes, the potential ventilation, amount of washrooms, amount of sinks, etc... in the name of food safety.
Now that's fine but why do governments get tens of thousands of those fees? There's also no nuance for small-scale operators. And if you buy a defunct restaurant that's already paid those fees, you get to pay them again. Again, these are to comply with "health regulations" and are things that no non-food business needs to pay.
> And none of it prevents bad food handling practices by minimum wage staff.
Your argument is that all restaurants in your area handle food unsafely? Or that some do flagrantly and without penalty? Or that one has once and you got sick and so all the regulations are worthless as a result?
Trying to understand what argument you think you’re making, here, and specifically how factually bereft and vacuous it actually is.
Maybe try reading or understanding. We're talking a stage where there is no lease and there are no employees. There's just an idea and an empty space.
You need to pay various levels of governments, engineers and architects 10's of thousands just to make blueprints and have them stamped by 2 levels of governments before a construction permit is even given in the name of "food safety".
Then you need to build the thing, pay more fees to get it actually certified. Then maybe you can think about hiring and training employees, a million or so dollars later.
The equivalent is a tech startup needing to pay government and some regulatory organization $50k just to be allowed to buy a laptop to then maybe think about writing code in the future.
Yes, paying government fees before there's a single employee doesn't magically imbue the employees (that don't exist yet) with the knowledge of safe food handling...
> We're talking a stage where there is no lease and there are no employees. There's just an idea and an empty space.
Do you think cold storage requirements, sinks, and other functional items in the kitchen don't prevent poor food handling practices?
> a million or so dollars later.
Eye roll.
> The equivalent is a tech startup needing to pay government and some regulatory organization $50k just to be allowed to buy a laptop to then maybe think about writing code in the future.
Your shitty react SPA likely won't kill anyone because you didn't bother installing any sinks and didn't think your refrigerator needed to appropriately keep raw chicken at the right temperature. But if it could, maybe they should. Maybe there would be less Meta engineers and we'd all be better off.
> Yes, paying government fees before there's a single employee doesn't magically imbue the employees (that don't exist yet) with the knowledge of safe food handling...
And yet it provides them with the appropriate tools to keep that food safe after.
> Maybe try reading or understanding.
Ironic lead in, when you don't actually know what regulations you're even whining about or why they might exist.
I was really hoping this gave people the right to use their computers, but it really looks like it simply prevents "the government" from regulating the right to "make use of computational resources." So Google or Apple can still prevent me from using my phone for lawful purposes, the government just can't regulate it (and the government might not be able to write restrictions that prevent manufacturers from violating my right to compute.)
I think the main content of this law (https://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB212/id/3212152) is just two paragraphs. I'd suggest reading them yourself rather than relying on secondary description:
"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."
"When critical infrastructure facilities are controlled in whole or in part by a critical artificial intelligence system, the deployer shall develop a risk management policy after deploying the system that is reasonable and considers guidance and standards in the latest version of the artificial intelligence risk management framework from the national institute of standards and technology, the ISO/IEC 4200 artificial intelligence standard from the international organization for standardization, or another nationally or internationally recognized risk management framework for artificial intelligence systems. A plan prepared under federal requirements constitutes compliance with this section."
In particular, I think the reporting is straight wrong that there's a shutdown requirement. That was in an earlier version (https://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB212/id/3078731) and remains in the title of this version, but seems to have been removed from the actual text.
Pointless and deceptive. A real "right to compute" law would ban remote attestation, would ban discrimination against users based on the "trustworthiness" of their systems, would force companies to allow custom software and firmware as well as provide technical documentation and specifications to users so they can repair and modify the systems they bought.
With laws such as the Brazilian one or the one proposed in New York, I am curious to know what will be the future for computing.
On one hand, forbidding and limiting people from using computers as they wish is somewhat impossible, as too many computers that don't have restrictions have already been produced. You can always use old hardware and, with open source projects, fork an old version that will respect your right to compute. At some point though it will be a problem as hardware no longer works and software becomes incompatible with everything. The thing is that those who will probably be doing it mostly are people that already grew accustomed to not live in an Orwellian state, while, on the other hand, newer generations will all be using new systems with these restrictions, as if they were normal. The smart ones will find ways of circumventing it (as if it wouldn't be hard to get your parents CC and verify it as if you were over 18).
Given that, they will be computing in a restrictive and controlled environment. I feel sorry for them.
I am going to college (Computer Science) as an older student with previous experience in programming, and it never ceases to amaze me that the current generation of students doesn't think out of the box and is completely dependent on ChatGPT. We all suffered from conditioning from governments and corporations throughout the years, but it is accelerating at an alarming rate.
Acts like this (the one from Montana) are positive, but unfortunate that they simply have to exist and somewhat irrelevant when the big dogs (California, New York and whole countries such as Australia) approve legislation that will promptly be followed by most companies/projects, which will in turn force this way of things happening everywhere else.
This is extremely light on details, but I'm pretty sure "Right to Compute" has absolutely nothing to do with software freedom and everything to do with making it harder to oppose giant datacenter buildouts for AI companies, so they can blast you with infrasound, spike the price of electricity and RAM, and build surveillance systems to take away your rights.
One of America's greatest strengths is the structure of it as a federation. It allows for states like this to take the lead in expanding datacenter infrastructure while other states can choose to shutdown such expansions. This was perhaps more significant in COVID-19 reactions in America, but datacenters have few such externalities and so this is an even more compelling example of variation between states.
The scaling of federal power with population is also significant as states like Texas that allow for more housing to be built will probably receive more seats at the next apportionment while states like California will lose seats. Overall, pretty neat to see the design of America work quite well like this.
It amuses me how contradictory the two bullet points from the article are.
- Strict limits on governmental regulation, wherein any restrictions must be demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to a compelling public safety or health interest.
- Mandatory safety protocols for AI-controlled critical infrastructure, including a shutdown mechanism and compulsory annual risk management reviews.
How were the necessity and scope of the second rule shown to satisfy the first rule?
The interesting structural tension here is that "Right to Compute" framing appeals to individualist/property-rights instincts, but the actual beneficiaries are hyperscalers and large data center operators. Individual compute rights already exist — nobody is stopping you from running a server.
What the bill actually does (based on typical legislation of this type) is preempt local zoning and environmental review for large compute facilities. That's a legitimate policy choice, but calling it a "right" is doing a lot of rhetorical work.
For comparison: Wyoming and Texas have done similar things for data centers via tax incentives rather than regulatory preemption. Both approaches get data centers built; they just differ in who captures the value.
I really dislike how 'compute' as a noun took over 'computational' as an adjective. I just find the sentence 'I need more computational resources' flows so much nicer than ''I need more compute'.
Montana is both cold and sparely populated, so I figure data centers would be good there. Also, I figure Zefram Cochrane could use all that compute for his warp theories in a few decades.
The name "Right to Compute" implies this protects individual users, but the actual text reads more like a shield for datacenter operators against local zoning and environmental review. Worth reading the bill itself (SB 212) before celebrating. The "after deployment" risk management requirement for critical infrastructure AI systems is also pretty toothless. Safety frameworks that kick in after you're already running seem backwards.
Excuse me, the article states that this bill was signed on april 17th of last year. How has this become suddenly relevant now?
I would say considering there has been almost a year since this bill was signed, what happened since then? Was it applied to hurt people's interests? Did it drive investment?
Are Montanans demonstrably better or worse off because of this in some way?
So what does liberal even mean these days? California is passing bs like age verification in OS and Montana is protecting my right to leave the way I want in my own home, running whatever AI models suit me as long as I am not bothering anyone. That's just another "none of government business" personal freedom issue like pot or sexuality, why aren't blue states all over it. And yes, using tuned LLMs can be like an acid trip, but the distance between having a trip at home and tangible harm is much greater than in the case of access to guns, knives, power tools, cars and rodent poison yet at least some of these are widely available to law abiding citizens in every state. Government interventions can be staged at the points where there is evidence of actual imminent harm, like problematic public behavior. Why are Democrats the new "Reefer Madness" pearl clutchers and why should I still believe they have anything to do with living the way you want?
What about a “right to create act” giving people the right to create things and not have their creation be ingested to train ai for billion dollar companies?
Most of the comments are cynical. I read this, at least the "right to compute" part, as a reaction to the current onslaught of censorship and age verification laws. Which is a good thing.
The AI part honestly looks fairly harmless, just applying existing standards, but I may be wrong there...
We need the opposite, and you'd think Montana would be leading that opposite effort.
I need the right to not use a computer for any reason whatsoever! Every business transaction, doctors visit, buying food, it all requires an app or a phone these days. it will only get worse. We need the right to not use some techbro's app in order to survive.
The tragedy is that 'right to compute' is such a great name for something actually useful. Requiring OEMs to allow users to load any OS they want, requiring OEMs to allow full control over a device/OS ('root access') etc.
This is a law designed to force data centers to be built. This is nothing but a bipartisan corporate handout. Nothing to celebrate. The law makers should be ashamed.
EDIT for the downvoters, from the law:
> Any restrictions placed by the government on the ability to privately own or make use of computational resources for lawful purposes must be limited to those demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest in public health or safety.
This basically means you can't use government action to stop the building of a data-center.
256 comments
The absence of such a story makes me think this law doesn't protect shit. What exactly did a Montanian get killed or arrested trying to do with a computer that is now protected? Can I use AI during a traffic stop or use AI to surveil and doxx governemnt employees? What exactly is the government giving up by granting me this right?
Or is this just about supressing opposition to data centers?
> Nationally, the Right to Compute movement is gaining traction. Spearheaded by the grassroots group RightToCompute.ai, the campaign argues that computation — like speech and property — is a fundamental human right. “A computer is an extension of the human capacity to think,” the organization states.
I don't necessarily disagree with the idea, but until profit is shared with taxpayers, this is a one-way transaction of taxpayers bankrolling AI companies.
As far as monopolies go I don't think it's our biggest concern, like you say.
If we want to continue to wage wars and seek conquest, it's not great to have it located in one/few countries. But instead if we want to work towards peace, we should continue breaking down barriers to trade (while maintaining protections for labor).
It's still way better than Upton Sinclair's time. But it would be nice if the FDA and USDA were run by people who eat rather than sell food.
And none of it prevents bad food handling practices by minimum wage staff.
> Neither of them have a place in a conversation about the efficacy of food safety laws
They do because these fees are paid to engineers and architects as well as to the local health authority to certify that the restaurant is up to local "health codes", keeping in mind this is pre-lease and pre-construction. They regulate the size of pipes, the potential ventilation, amount of washrooms, amount of sinks, etc... in the name of food safety.
Now that's fine but why do governments get tens of thousands of those fees? There's also no nuance for small-scale operators. And if you buy a defunct restaurant that's already paid those fees, you get to pay them again. Again, these are to comply with "health regulations" and are things that no non-food business needs to pay.
> And none of it prevents bad food handling practices by minimum wage staff.
Your argument is that all restaurants in your area handle food unsafely? Or that some do flagrantly and without penalty? Or that one has once and you got sick and so all the regulations are worthless as a result?
Trying to understand what argument you think you’re making, here, and specifically how factually bereft and vacuous it actually is.
You need to pay various levels of governments, engineers and architects 10's of thousands just to make blueprints and have them stamped by 2 levels of governments before a construction permit is even given in the name of "food safety".
Then you need to build the thing, pay more fees to get it actually certified. Then maybe you can think about hiring and training employees, a million or so dollars later.
The equivalent is a tech startup needing to pay government and some regulatory organization $50k just to be allowed to buy a laptop to then maybe think about writing code in the future.
Yes, paying government fees before there's a single employee doesn't magically imbue the employees (that don't exist yet) with the knowledge of safe food handling...
> We're talking a stage where there is no lease and there are no employees. There's just an idea and an empty space.
Do you think cold storage requirements, sinks, and other functional items in the kitchen don't prevent poor food handling practices?
> a million or so dollars later.
Eye roll.
> The equivalent is a tech startup needing to pay government and some regulatory organization $50k just to be allowed to buy a laptop to then maybe think about writing code in the future.
Your shitty react SPA likely won't kill anyone because you didn't bother installing any sinks and didn't think your refrigerator needed to appropriately keep raw chicken at the right temperature. But if it could, maybe they should. Maybe there would be less Meta engineers and we'd all be better off.
> Yes, paying government fees before there's a single employee doesn't magically imbue the employees (that don't exist yet) with the knowledge of safe food handling...
And yet it provides them with the appropriate tools to keep that food safe after.
> Maybe try reading or understanding.
Ironic lead in, when you don't actually know what regulations you're even whining about or why they might exist.
"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."
"When critical infrastructure facilities are controlled in whole or in part by a critical artificial intelligence system, the deployer shall develop a risk management policy after deploying the system that is reasonable and considers guidance and standards in the latest version of the artificial intelligence risk management framework from the national institute of standards and technology, the ISO/IEC 4200 artificial intelligence standard from the international organization for standardization, or another nationally or internationally recognized risk management framework for artificial intelligence systems. A plan prepared under federal requirements constitutes compliance with this section."
In particular, I think the reporting is straight wrong that there's a shutdown requirement. That was in an earlier version (https://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB212/id/3078731) and remains in the title of this version, but seems to have been removed from the actual text.
Given that, they will be computing in a restrictive and controlled environment. I feel sorry for them.
I am going to college (Computer Science) as an older student with previous experience in programming, and it never ceases to amaze me that the current generation of students doesn't think out of the box and is completely dependent on ChatGPT. We all suffered from conditioning from governments and corporations throughout the years, but it is accelerating at an alarming rate.
Acts like this (the one from Montana) are positive, but unfortunate that they simply have to exist and somewhat irrelevant when the big dogs (California, New York and whole countries such as Australia) approve legislation that will promptly be followed by most companies/projects, which will in turn force this way of things happening everywhere else.
The scaling of federal power with population is also significant as states like Texas that allow for more housing to be built will probably receive more seats at the next apportionment while states like California will lose seats. Overall, pretty neat to see the design of America work quite well like this.
- Strict limits on governmental regulation, wherein any restrictions must be demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to a compelling public safety or health interest.
- Mandatory safety protocols for AI-controlled critical infrastructure, including a shutdown mechanism and compulsory annual risk management reviews.
How were the necessity and scope of the second rule shown to satisfy the first rule?
What the bill actually does (based on typical legislation of this type) is preempt local zoning and environmental review for large compute facilities. That's a legitimate policy choice, but calling it a "right" is doing a lot of rhetorical work.
For comparison: Wyoming and Texas have done similar things for data centers via tax incentives rather than regulatory preemption. Both approaches get data centers built; they just differ in who captures the value.
I would say considering there has been almost a year since this bill was signed, what happened since then? Was it applied to hurt people's interests? Did it drive investment?
Are Montanans demonstrably better or worse off because of this in some way?
I was hoping for that as a reaction to the current tyrannical movements worldwide to end anonymous personal computing.
what a weaselly name, this would make the most cutthroat ad exec blush with embarrassment
Oh cool!
Look inside
No mention of:
- Self-repair
- Self-service
- Hardware and software modifications
- Protecting consumers from proprietary anti-circumvention tools
- Bolstering open source
- Better access to technology in early ages (through funding primary schools and libraries)
- Dedicated computer and Internet crisis response teams to tackle disinformation, cyberattacks, cyberbullying, and state-sponsored attacks
- Improving citizen's access to End-to-End encryption software - Sovereign AI and software
Very cool, Montana. What a load of nothing.
The AI part honestly looks fairly harmless, just applying existing standards, but I may be wrong there...
TL;DR: Basically the AI industry trying to ban governments from regulating it
> Apr 21, 2025
why is this posted now?
> “This bill will help position Montana as a world-class destination for AI and Data Center investment.”
https://frontierinstitute.org/frontier-institute-statement-i...
Ah.
I need the right to not use a computer for any reason whatsoever! Every business transaction, doctors visit, buying food, it all requires an app or a phone these days. it will only get worse. We need the right to not use some techbro's app in order to survive.
Always follow the money: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Frontier_Institute
Instead, it's wasted on AI slop.
EDIT for the downvoters, from the law:
> Any restrictions placed by the government on the ability to privately own or make use of computational resources for lawful purposes must be limited to those demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest in public health or safety.
This basically means you can't use government action to stop the building of a data-center.