Maybe you're just committed to rage (look, it's Mr Social Media) but IT SEEMS like you're "too stupid" to see that I was very, very specifically criticizing the commenter in the story that complained "How many people does it take to run a data center after taking up all this property and all this land that could have been used for something else?" eg, that data centers don't provide satisfactory employees per area numbers (when that land likely was being used for agriculture, which is generally EVEN FEWER employees per area).

That IS a stupid take.
What's even stupider is misreading my comment as some sort of criticism about agriculture, which it wasn't even faintly.

L2READ, dipshit.

I admire the Left's newfound opposition to pointless regulations, lol

... if they chart?

I suppose if one were to ignore 250 years of constitutional law

What "Constitutional Law"? Citation needed. Needed so badly, I'll do it for you:

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Established the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test. The Court held that what a person knowingly exposes to the public is not protected by the Fourth Amendment, laying the foundation for warrantless visual observation of people in public places.

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)

Held that police may use a beeper (tracking device) to follow a vehicle on public roads without a warrant. A person traveling on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements from one place to another; visual surveillance (or technological aids that merely enhance it) is not a Fourth Amendment “search.”

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)

While ruling that prolonged GPS tracking of a vehicle constitutes a search requiring a warrant (because of the physical attachment of the device), the Court reaffirmed that short-term visual or technological monitoring of movements on public roads remains permissible without a warrant under the principles of Knotts.

Oh, wait...

Gee, how could Iran find allies in Minnesota, lol

I mean, people totally won't use this to report stuff that they simply disagree with.

people shouldn't have a government that follows their every step by using AI and networked devices

Maybe, we should not, but there is not law prohibiting government to do this.

AI may be new, but the problem is not, and courts have repeatedly reaffirmed government's right to surveil us in public without any warrants (list courtesy of Grok). The second item — known as Knotts — is particularly telling...

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Established the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test. The Court held that what a person knowingly exposes to the public is not protected by the Fourth Amendment, laying the foundation for warrantless visual observation of people in public places.

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)

Held that police may use a beeper (tracking device) to follow a vehicle on public roads without a warrant. A person traveling on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their movements from one place to another; visual surveillance (or technological aids that merely enhance it) is not a Fourth Amendment “search.”

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)

While ruling that prolonged GPS tracking of a vehicle constitutes a search requiring a warrant (because of the physical attachment of the device), the Court reaffirmed that short-term visual or technological monitoring of movements on public roads remains permissible without a warrant under the principles of Knotts.

Besides, how can the 4th Amendment include cameras, which didn't exist in the 18th century, if the 2nd doesn't protect "assault rifles"? :-)

Let's make sure we make in the legal framework to ensure anyone hosting/building llms is held legal& financially liable for any damage they cause?

Usage of Flock cameras is almost certainly a violation of the 4th amendment.

It most definitely is not. The actual text of the Amendment, for your benefit:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

The camera is not peering into your pockets, or windows. It is only looking at what's publicly visible...

Very simple, obvious, common-sense argument: whatever a human policeman can see and memorize, an electronic device can record too.

Governments don't have the right to do mass general surveillance

Huh?! Why not? Let's focus on American (Federal) government in particular — what is prohibiting them from conducting "mass general surveillance"?

Not saying, it is good — or bad — just want you to substantiate your claim, that it is somehow illegal...

You know most agricultural work in the US DOESN'T require importation of menial workers, right?

According to grok by value, only 15-25% of farm production requires menial labor, eg migrant workers.
Robotics are likely to significantly reduce that.

My point was that it's just a silly take to say "look at all this land that could have been used for something else" (presumably employing more people) when in fact most of the large swathes of agri land in this country barely employ anyone.

It's like complaining about data centers "using up" 17bn gallons of water when golf courses take something north of 500bn gallons and not saying a word about that.

...is the legal framework that I can hand my logins and all digital accounts to my heirs and assigns upon my death.

I'm going to provide them all the passwords etc regardless but I'd very much like the legal framework to recognize this.

Honestly my biggest challenge is keeping track of all the logins and remembering to update "that document" when I make changes. It's another reason I refuse to (only) use biometric unlocks on devices. There are plenty of use cases I can imagine where I might need someone to unlock something and I'm not present.

"Mostly" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here:

So three out of seven got home confinement, but one of them had it come after the completion of a prison sentence. One of the remaining two was "a contract intelligence analyst" which is hardly an executive. The last is "a manager of global intelligence" who reported to someone who got prison time ("senior manager of global intelligence) so I would also say "not an executive."

WRT to the CEO, I agree he got off easy and should have been prosecuted, for, at the very least, destruction of evidence. It appears his response to being notified of a litigation hold because there was an ongoing criminal probe was to... delete everything.

Oddly, the wikipedia page disagrees with the lengths of various sentences but does tend to support that "home confinement" was not really how executives were handled. It also mentions Ebay's internal investigation (which was conducted by an outside party) found that he neither directed that knew criminal acts would follow. While I am suspicious of "we investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing," the outside firm suggests this was above board. One would hazard to guess that the destroyed evidence may very well have shown that he did, but here we are.

By the way, your sig is amusing as heck.

How many people does it take to run a data center after taking up all this property and all this land that could have been used for something else?

You mean like farming, where hundreds or thousands of acres are only "worked" by a handful of people or less? I think there are scores of reasons not to cover the world in data centers better than "but they take up space".

... When there are no consequences for bad behavior, it's often the best strategy.

Today, if you're wealthy enough or of the right group of people, you can largely ignore the law as well. And the behaviors are just as opportunistic and amoral.