An email asking for AI training data isn’t what worries me. We need to talk about how some companies are ACTUALLY getting their AI training data. This year, SnapMagic experienced two of the largest scraping attacks in our history. When I investigated, both pointed back to “AI training data” companies. These companies are hired to source or "create" training data. In both cases, they hired large groups of student contractors to scrape our CAD models using both programmatic and manual methods. These contractors, who have no connection to PCB design, were working in violation of our terms of service. We make PCB design data freely available to help engineers design electronics. Our terms prohibit reselling it or using it for any other purpose. The first attack took our platform down for an entire weekend while our team worked to restore access and tighten security. Since the contractors -- working on tight deadlines -- were creating new accounts as soon as they were blocked, we needed to introduce phone verification, knowing it would add friction for engineers. (So if you’ve wondered why SnapMagic now requires it, this is why.) The concern is the chain of accountability. If a company hires a third party company, which then hires a large group of individual contractors across the globe, who is accountable for making sure the data is sourced with permission? The industry needs greater transparency and traceability on where data came from, how it was collected, and what rights they have to use it.