Montana becomes first state to enshrine 'right to compute' into law

Perceived Threats to Computing Freedom

• Some see this as a “Second Amendment for computers,” aimed at preempting future AI or compute restrictions (e.g., limits on open-source models, training-size thresholds, crypto mining bans, or encryption backdoors).
• Others think the immediate risk to personal laptops is low and view the bill as a solution in search of a problem, or mainly symbolic.
• Historical attempts to restrict encryption and recent AI executive orders are cited as evidence that compute and software freedoms are politically vulnerable.

What the Law Actually Does

• Core clause: state actions that restrict private use or ownership of computational resources for lawful purposes must meet a high “public health or safety” bar and be narrowly tailored.
• Separate provisions require AI-controlled critical infrastructure to have human override, tested fallback plans, and annual risk reviews.
• Commenters note this reads like importing a “strict scrutiny”-style standard into state statute.

Individual Rights vs Corporate Power

• Many initially interpreted this as protecting individuals’ ability to own general-purpose computers or self-host software.
• A strong counterview: the real target is shielding data centers, AI firms, and cryptominers from local zoning, environmental, noise, and NIMBY-style opposition.
• State preemption of local regulation is a recurring concern; some see this as deregulation of surveillance infrastructure and large-scale compute, not empowerment of citizens.

Limits, Loopholes, and Conflicts

• “For lawful purposes” is seen as a major escape hatch: the state can criminalize certain uses and sidestep the protection.
• Federal regimes (DMCA, export controls, federal AI rules) would override this; it likely doesn’t help with DRM, DeCSS, or bootloader locks.
• It constrains only government action, not private platform restrictions (locked phones, app stores, ToS), which many view as the real threat to “right to compute.”

Courts, Tyranny, and Practical Impact

• Broad “public health or safety” language worries some, who see it as the kind of vague standard tyrannical governments exploit.
• Others reply this is as strong as statutory protection gets; abuse ultimately depends on courts and political culture.
• Possible secondary impacts (unclear): challenging blanket “no computer” probation conditions; shaping future litigation over AI/data-center siting.