this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2025
175 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

76808 readers
2873 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
175
Montana Becomes First State to Enshrine ‘Right to Compute’ Into Law - Montana Newsroom (montananewsroom.com)
submitted 3 days ago by undead_falco@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't think it says that a company can't put restrictions on you. It says The government can't restrict how it's used —notably supported by AI groups so they can't regulate that. A company can still prevent you from doing whatever the hell they want if they have the power to.

[–] VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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 1 points 2 days 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.