
San Francisco Wants to Require Permits Before Rolling Out 'Emerging Technology' - chr1
https://reason.com/2019/10/10/san-francisco-wants-to-require-companies-to-get-permits-before-rolling-out-emerging-technology/?amp&__twitter_impression=true
======
kd5bjo
The motivation behind the idea seems reasonable enough but, as always, the
devil will be in the details. Obtaining one of these permits could be as
simple as posting a cleanup bond for the case your company fails. Or it could
be a giant bureaucratic maze of red tape. Or it could be a ban by another
name.

There’s also the question of identifying what is and isn’t “emerging
technology”. Arguably the scooter companies could already be liable under
well-crafted littering or public nuisance laws[1], or maybe something like
incitement to litter. Uber relied on differential rules for street hailing vs.
pre-ordered rides to avoid buying taxi medallions in the early days, using
only already-licensed car services. Tech companies’ private bus services
were/are controversial, and use no new technology at all: just internal
combustion, human drivers, fixed routes, and a regular timetable. Which of
these would have needed one of the new permits, and would they be able obtain
one?

1) I have no idea if today’s version of these laws is capable of this or not.

------
GhostVII
Sounds somewhat reasonable actually. Companies shouldn't be free to just dump
their scooters or robots or whatever in public spaces without approval.

~~~
CryptoPunk
The laws should be agnostic to whether the technology is emerging or
traditional. For example, parking private property on public space should need
to be done responsibly whether it's part of a WiFi connected emerging
technology startup or not.

And the laws should restrict only the offending behaviour, not all behavior
subject to approval.

Centralized permissioning is a terrible way to structure an industry:

1\. It encourages rent-seeking by those in and close to the regulatory-
body/political-leadership. It's not a coincidence that the region of the US
that has seen the fastest income growth over theast 40 years is the suburbs of
Washington D.C. and that the wealthiest counties in the US surround Washington
DC. The phenomenon of the revolving door between government and highly
regulated private industries is a manifestation of rent seeking.

2\. It does an enormous amount of collateral damage in the form of onerous
barriers to embarking on entirely responsible business initiatives.

3\. It reduces accountability for regulators by flipping the burden of proof
to the party facing restrictions, and wanting them to be lifted, instead of
the regulator wanting to impose the restriction.

~~~
speedplane
> laws should be agnostic to whether the technology is emerging or traditional

In a world where everyone can anticipate the consequences of everything, this
would be correct. However, such a world does not exist.

Traditional technology has the benefit of having known social cost/benefit
consequences. Emerging technology has no track record, and there is not enough
data to perform a proper cost benefit analysis.

A relevant example: Cities have a lot of experience regulating taxis and
analyzing how they affect traffic, transportation, public safety, and cost of
living. In contrast, the consequences of adding scooters to the streets are
unclear. They likely improve transportation options, but they may also slow
down vehicular traffic, create public safety hazards, and siphon money away
from public transportation systems. A comprehensive cost-benefit analysis may
eventually show scooters are a net positive or a net negative. However,
because it's an emerging technology, there is not enough data to do such an
analysis.

When there is less confidence and data, it's entirely reasonable to take that
uncertainty into account when drafting policy. Some localities may choose to
be faster adopters, a higher risk tolerance for risk in exchange for faster
innovation. Others may have a lower tolerance for risk, preferring to value
stability over quick improvements.

Reasonable people can disagree on the appropriate risk tolerance, but
regardless, risk of the unknown is still a legitimate factor to weigh when
crafting policy.

~~~
CryptoPunk
>>In a world where everyone can anticipate the consequences of everything,
this would be correct. However, such a world does not exist.

That's the wrong way to approach the issue of what laws to craft. The action
itself should be judged on its own merit, in its cost to society, independent
of its connection to other factors that may have negative or positive impacts
on society.

The cost to society of an object being place in a pedestrian path way should
be measured, regardless of whether that object is a scooter that improves
transportation options or a rock that doesn't.

If those imposing negative externalities are made to stop, or made to pay for
them, then only those activities that have a net positive impact on society
will be economically sustainable.

With the scooter example, if the benefits scooters provide in increasing
mobility outweigh the charges levied on scooter rental companies for the costs
of increased sidewalk congestion, then the business model will be viable. The
cost-benefit analysis should be done by entrepeneurs, not by one set of
regulators making all decisions. The regulator's job should be to calculate
the negative externalities each action imposes and ensure entrepeneurs pay for
them. That in turn will align the financial success of entrepreneurs with the
social good.

Each party confining itself to its own role is a more scalable way to organize
society than the state attempting to model every factor as part of a large-
scale cost-benefit analysis and effectively make business decisions that
should be made by numerous private investors with their own capital on the
line for their respective business. Central economic planning is not an
effective way to organize and run society.

>>Cities have a lot of experience regulating taxis and analyzing how they
affect traffic, transportation, public safety, and cost of living.

If cities knew what they were doing, there wouldn't be so many poorly run
regulated taxi services.

~~~
speedplane
> The action itself should be judged on its own merit, in its cost to society,
> independent of its connection to other factors that may have negative or
> positive impacts on society.

I think you're missing my point. I agree that many policies should largely be
measured with an objective cost benefit analysis. However, for emerging
technologies, it can be very difficult to accurately perform such a cost
benefit analysis. There is less data, and confidence levels are lower.

It's much easier to evaluate the cost/benefit of taxis than scooters simply
because there is far more historical data.

~~~
CryptoPunk
My point is that it should not be the job of regulators to do cost-benefit
analyses on product categories. It should be to simply measure the cost of a
negative externality, in a technology/product agnostic way, and make sure
entrepeneurs pay that cost.

The cost-benefit analysis is then done by private parties, in order to avoid
losses and maximize profits.

~~~
speedplane
> The cost-benefit analysis is then done by private parties, in order to avoid
> losses and maximize profits.

This is such a theoretical statements that ignores so many realities. Uber
wants to enter a new city. The city has an established taxi industry and
policies in place to manage pollution, congestion, housing, and new
development. What "private parties" are supposed to do the cost-benefit
analysis here? Obviously it's in Uber's interest to move in, but what if that
increases pollution or the livability of the city to the existing residents?
There are no private parties that are in a position to do a credible and
representative analysis of the costs and benefits.

------
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21233245](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21233245)

~~~
AlchemistCamp
Better article and more readable site this time.

------
dannykwells
I like this idea but I know the NIMBYism+cronyism of the SF city council will
screw it up.

------
anigbrowl
Given the 5 or 6 brands of (mutually incompatible) scooters littering Bay area
streets right now this is not such a terrible idea. They weren't declared a
public nuisance by heartless bureaucrats (indeed this didn't happen at al
where I live): they just started taking up street space and getting in the way
of disabled people, people with kids, and anyone needing to push a cart on a
sidewalk. I've lost count of the times I've had to move one or more of the
things out of the way to get where I was going, where's my check?

~~~
leovander
_I 've lost count of the times I've had to move one or more of the things out
of the way to get where I was going, where's my check?_

[https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/san-diego-startup-
imp...](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/san-diego-startup-impounds-
wayward-e-scooters-n973841)

~~~
anigbrowl
That was unexpectedly entertaining.

