Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses United States

San Francisco Wants to Require Companies To Get Permits Before Rolling Out 'Emerging Technology' (reason.com) 131

Posted by msmash from the up-next dept.
Companies in San Francisco might soon to be required to get a permission slip from the city before rolling out their new innovations in public spaces. From a report: On Tuesday, Norman Yee, president of the city's Board of Supervisors, introduced a bill that would create the Office of Emerging Technology (OET). Entrepreneurs looking to deploy any emerging technology "upon, above, or below" city properties or public rights-of-way would need to first obtain a pilot permit from the OET's director. "As a city, we must ensure that such technologies ultimately result in a net common good and that we evaluate the costs and benefits so that our residents, workers and visitors are not unwittingly made guinea pigs of new tech," said Yee in a statement to the San Francisco Chronicle. Over the years San Francisco's tech companies have deployed all kinds of inventions in public spaces, including package delivery robots and dockless electric scooters. But because these innovations were, well, innovative, no specific rules initially existed to govern their use.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

San Francisco Wants to Require Companies To Get Permits Before Rolling Out 'Emerging Technology' More

San Francisco Wants to Require Companies To Get Permits Before Rolling Out 'Emerging Technology'

Comments Filter:

  • Um no (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Monday October 14, 2019 @09:10AM (#59305400) Homepage Journal

    Um no, there were plenty of rules that prevented things like scooter rentals. Things like helmet laws, littering/abandonment laws, regulations against motorized vehicles on sidewalks. That was all ignored because the politicians were paid off ("lobbied"). This is just another money grab so the connected politicians can get "lobbied" more effectively.

    • Which evil is worse? (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Which evil is worse here. Companies that are losing money, but have tons of cash thrown at them by investors who make death traps, with people hitting the ER every hour, or a city that is less sanitary than southern Indian cities, where they actually have public restrooms, and pooping on the streets is not a thing anymore.

      Can't decide which is worse.

    • With a multi million dollar start up breaking them in mass. Especially when those start ups are well aware they're breaking them and just factoring in the fines as cost of business. A $200 ticket for littering hurts like the Dickens to me. For a large company they don't even notice.

      • Yes they were. They could have stopped it if they wanted to. In fact they usually did obtain "permission" from the cities. That is where all the millions go. Part of the cost of doing business in America.

    • This is not the 80s. Politicians today ARE the lobbyists. No bribery needed. They do it out of conviction.

      Laws are created, by a lobbyist think tank writing it, and handing it to their employee in "government", who introduces it to the other corporations' lobbyists to vote on.

      And your vote means nothing. There are only two kinds of politicians. Corporate lobbyists, and those who get destroyed by corporate media and lobbyists. (Like Sanders, and probably Warren.)
      Trump only got in, because he was assumed to b

      • That is 100% true on the Federal level, but the local politicians like in SF are pretty dumb. They are good with $50k "donations".

    • Um no, there were plenty of rules that prevented things like scooter rentals. Things like helmet laws, littering/abandonment laws, regulations against motorized vehicles on sidewalks.

      Well yes but none of those really prevent the supplier just the customer. TO make a bad analogy it would be like criminalizing heroin use not heroin sale. Assuming one feels it's better for society to have available heroin restricted that it is (sorry libertarians, you can't have a nuclear weapon even if you don't plan to harm anyone.)

      This is about trying to stop someone seeing loopholes like this and creating a massive enforcement problem. You should not be allowed to do things that cost shift things

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        Well yes but none of those really prevent the supplier just the customer.

        Littering laws allow confiscation. If they were enforced consistently, those rental bikes and scooters would get a single use (at most), and then they would go away, which would make those companies' business models non-viable.

        So that would cause the companies to create rules requiring users to return the hardware to a proper location, and would also force the companies to arrange for such a proper storage location to exist, rather th

        • Littering won't work. They will just deploy these things at "base stations" on the private properties of friendly merchants. But people will then scatter them everywhere.

          Moreover, Lime or Bird will say they didn't litter, but some of their gig subconractors deployed them illegally.

          Finally, no matter how the law applies to it still creates a distributed drag on the enforcement system with thousands of small acts of littering around the city.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            Littering won't work. They will just deploy these things at "base stations" on the private properties of friendly merchants. But people will then scatter them everywhere.

            At which point they will be litter, and they will get confiscated and sold at auction (for scrap value if necessary) if not reclaimed and the fine paid. And then the companies will pass rules that require the users to keep the bikes/scooters with them or store them someplace sensible until they return them, and will kick people off the pla

    • The problem with the legal system, is it isn't necessarily flexible enough, and most companies will tend to skirt the line between legal and illegal. Helmet laws apply to motorcycles, and bicycles not scooters. While the difference between them isn't anything practical.
      It isn't necessarily about getting paid off, but just taking advantage for the length of time for a new law to become in place, and if a method become common and acceptable in that time, the law may not come out.

  • As a city, we must ensure that such technologies ultimately result in a net common good

    God bless their selfless hearts and omniscient minds. We certainly do not deserve the politicians capable of ensuring such common good — or even discerning, what "common good" constitutes in the first place!

    • Craziness, this internet thing might be good or bad, give us 10 years to study it....

      • In fairness, the internet isn't a physical thing that can deployed on sidewalks or streets (which is only what the proposed law covers).
        • The article says "upon, above, or below" city property and "public rights-of-way." The Internet is deployed below and above all virtually property in the city via hard lines in the ground and on poles as well as various wireless technologies. You could try to argue that this only applies to the protocol layer and below and not the content but the opposite could be argued as well. Tesla could have one of their trucks self drive through the language here.
          • The internet started out going over pre-existing phone line copper. No permit would been needed because nothing new (at the time) was added.
            • The rule as written is pretty vague and could be interpreted broadly. One could argue that the way it is written it could have applied to digital data exchange over wires previously only used to deliver only voice to residential users, given that the lines run over and under public rights-of-way, regardless of the content of the digital data. Though I think the board of supervisors might end up in a fight with various higher level agencies of the state and federal government which would claim precedence ove

        • A 5G phone is emerging technology. Better get permission from the San Francisco board before you drive with your 5G on or above public roads.

          • The bill specifically defines emerging technology as a physical object. Electromagnetic radiation doesn't qualify. Try again.
            • Automated pooper scoopers that clean up the public area's due to the exploding homeless.

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by lgw ( 121541 )

              EM radiation is most certainly a physical object. It is massless, it is energy rather than matter, but it is certainly physical, and with a location and extent in space it is thus an object.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by mi ( 197448 )

              The bill specifically defines emerging technology as a physical object

              Splitting rabbits. The phrase used to justify the bill would certainly apply to the Internet:

              we must ensure that such technologies ultimately result in a net common good and that we evaluate the costs and benefits so that our residents, workers and visitors are not unwittingly made guinea pigs of new tech

              There, are we better off with the Internet, or should it have been pre-emptively banned — except for those duly bonded and licen

            • The definition is "a physical object, whether mobile or stationary, that constitute *or incorporate* new mobile or electronic technology or uses of technology".

              Are you suggesting that a 5G chip, or a phone, isn't a physical object? Or for that matter, Tesla?

              In fact *using" your fliphone in a new way would qualify.

              I'm just curious, why are you pretending to be dumb?
              Because you think you have an obligation to defend anything the San Francisco board does due to the fact that they are liberals?

              • I bought (and therefore own) the 5G chip in my phone that is for my exclusive use. I am not some company deploying anything for public use.

                I'm not the one being dumb here.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by dgatwood ( 11270 )

                  I bought (and therefore own) the 5G chip in my phone that is for my exclusive use. I am not some company deploying anything for public use.

                  What about people distributing 5G phones to the homeless as part of the lifeline cell phone program? (Okay, so maybe it won't still be emerging by the time 5G phones trickle down to the giveaway bin, but you get the point.)

                  The proposed law is fundamentally defective by design. Laws should, for the most part, be designed to prevent specific problems arising out of undes

                  • The cell towers would already have to have been upgraded to support 5G. That would have already gone through its own approval process. In the case of wireless tech, that's the purview of the FCC and the bill specifically defers to existing regulations of other agencies. If you're still trying to prove your point, 5G is a bad example.

                • Where in the bill do you see "some company deploying anything for public use"?

                  I see "use upon, above or below".
                  It outlaws use of new technologies, such as 5G phones.

                  • The bill specifically defines "Emerging Technology Companies" and limits its scope to those. The bill does not apply to individuals.

    • ... with democratic representatives of the people.
      Because government is still a good thing, if it is the latter. But a dictatorship, if it is the former.
      And your reaction suggests, that eiter you are anti-democratic, like any good libertarian, or you experienced mostly the latter and confuse the actions of corporations for those of legitimate governments.

      • Because government is still a good thing

        Government is a good thing to ensure our inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. (Not Happiness, mind you — only pursuit of it.)

        Nothing else. In particular, it is not there to prevent us from developing — and selling to each other — things that may or may not, in the opinion of some busybody somewhere, be bad for us.

        Because neither those busybodies — nor the voters putting them into office — know better than an

        • You should have the ability to engage in all of the consensual meth commerce you want in the privacy of your own home. Once you enter the Public Square, The Commons, you abide by the rules of the Commons. You know where the word Republic comes from? Res Publica, literally The Public Thing. A Park is Res Publica, a Park Bench is Res Publica, the street paid for by the collective you attack is Res Publica. The Republic has a right to set a Community Standard of how wares are peddled on its property.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mi ( 197448 )

            Once you enter the Public Square, The Commons, you abide by the rules of the Commons

            Nope, mutually consensual transactions must be legal anywhere. There is simply no standing for the other to tell us, what we must or must not smoke, how we must or must not fuck, etcaetera.

            the street paid for by the collective you attack is Res Publica

            By this logic, it is — should be — Ok for some such collectives to ban certain types of clothing [nbcnews.com] in that street, or, for another example, to ban certain races from [wikipedia.org]

    • Feely-feely words like "collective good" "common good" "the people's good" etc. are just a sideshow. The San Fransisco Ministry of Thought will help everyone transition to newspeak. :-)

  • Big problem here (Score:5, Funny)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday October 14, 2019 @09:16AM (#59305410)

    My device I planned to release is specifically built to evade state regulation, how am I supposed to properly beta-test if I have permission to deploy it?

  • If I was going to trust anyone to determine what is for the "common good," I'm sure it would be the San Francisco city board.

  • Maybe they could create an "Office of Sidewalk Shit Elimination" first?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nwaack ( 3482871 )
      Exactly. San Fran has SO many issues right now, and this is what they're worried about?
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • No, until they can prove they are capable of doing one thing at time why would we assume they can do more ?

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by drnb ( 2434720 )

          Yes, because they can only do one thing at a time, right?

          They can't do anything other than virtue signaling.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by lgw ( 121541 )

          Yes, because they can only do one thing at a time, right?

          There is some finite limit to the number of things. All the evidence is that they're well beyond that limit, as they lack the basic hallmarks of a first-world city.

          And it's a matter of priorities, where (at least in the civilized world) having shit-free streets is such a higher priority than this nonsense that it's only wasteful to have any effort spend on this while the real problems persist.

        • I think it's more of a case of wanting to be seen to be doing something because they're clearly not tackling any of the other problems or have failed to admit that their previous attempts at addressing those issues have been abject failures. So rather than own up to that, we get a pleasant little distraction over here to keep everyone talking about this instead.

          It also raises the question as to why anyone should trust the city government to get this any more right than their other solutions. Reality care

        • Yes, because they can only do one thing at a time, right?

          You think they can do things?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jythie ( 914043 )
        If one of their issues is people creating new issues, wouldn't a system to slow that down be a good thing?

    • They have no intention of doing anything about that. To quote, The right Honorable Mayor London Breed has no "intention to interfere with the homeless". They have more important issues to deal with, like banning plastic straws and declaring themselves exempt from federal law and intentionally obstructing federal law enforcement.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pyramid ( 57001 )

      How interesting that I got downvoted. By whom, I wonder?

  • What about automation? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pgmrdlm ( 1642279 ) on Monday October 14, 2019 @09:21AM (#59305420) Journal
    There is an article on CBS news about automation in service industry(Fast food). So, if someone comes up with a another technology to automate any manual task. Do they have to kiss the ground San Fran ass wipes walk on to deploy it.

    • Re:What about automation? (Score:5, Informative)

      by bickerdyke ( 670000 ) on Monday October 14, 2019 @09:34AM (#59305474)

      Automation in fast food restaurants is not deployed in a public space.

      • Not free-standing restaurants. But think of food trucks in parking lots or concession stands inside public venues.
    • So it's pretty obvious what this law means to address. It's to stop the streets from being flooded with more ride-sharing (which has been shown to increase congestion by taking people off public transit) and clear bike and scooter rentals off the sidewalks.

      The trouble is loop holes. So you're stuck writing your law to cover more than you want because some clever lawyer with good hair might convince a judge or jury that his new scooter rental business is automatic.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lgw ( 121541 )

        ride-sharing (which has been shown to increase congestion by taking people off public transit)

        You've completely mistaken the goal. The goal is not "less congestion" the goal is "more mobility". And, quite obviously, ride-sharing has been shown to increase mobility by giving a new option to people formerly restricted to public transit.

        Do you not have any elderly relatives who really shouldn't be driving? Don't know anyone who's disabled? Because it sounds like either you don't understand the huge difference in quality of life this makes, or you're a heartless bastard.

        So you're stuck writing your law to cover more than you want

        Stuck? To any totalitarian,

  • While I support the concept - I can see it becoming standard bureaucracy.

    My warning would to make it a Notification so that gov't rule makers receive a heads up to get going - and thinking. But I also believe that gov't needs to create a set of regulation Requirements so that businesses can think about this ahead of time and self-regulate. Then companies know when / how they fit in and what might need to change - both design wise and rule changes.

    Granted the nature of the inventions might cause "uh - did

  • Sounds good until (Score:5, Insightful)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Monday October 14, 2019 @09:27AM (#59305448) Homepage Journal

    You realize that the Board of Supervisors is not only unqualified to evaluate technology, they are also unqualified to select people for the so-called Office of Emerging Technology. Like most bureaucracies, any competent people were put there accidentally. We glad when we find competent people in government positions, because they hold the whole department together. Sadly the politics makes certain that we won't easily repeat that mistake.

    • They are qualified to accept bribes.

  • These people must be in some sort of a super bowl for idiots. Technology always affects everything, and there is a tendency for the initial period to be stressful. When automobiles first came to be the disruption was enormous. When the telegraph was invented it murdered the Pony Express. When the telephone came to be the telegraph companies suffered a grinding death. When motion pictures were invented the toll on local playhouses and entertainment in the bars suffered deeply. Public air transportation po
    • The Pony Express was never a financial success, and would have failed without the telegraph. It lasted only 1-1/2 years (1860-1861), and in addition to financial problems, operation was crippled by the American Civil War. There was a carriage service with much greater carrying capacity than horseback. The transcontinental railroad was a fact in 1869, and also was superior to the Pony express.
    • Right. And when uber needed to test its "self-driving" technology - it killed a pedestrian by turning off safety features that were interfering with its testing. Tesla "tested" its technology by running into emergency vehicles. Both of the companies had every reason to know those things were inevitable given the limits of their technology. And both of them blamed "the driver" for what happened. Afterall, they told them they needed to pay attention - wink, wink. Just take a look at Tesla's new "summons" fea
  • Despite pithy slogans to the contrary, it is the ossifying power of committees and regulations and permits that chokes invention. Imagine if this existed when Tesla and Edison weâ(TM)re setting up the first power transmission lines; you might still be using candles, âoeFor the Public Goodâ of course.
  • Someone should make the city leaders read Influx by Daniel Suarez . It involves a more extreme version of this called Bureau of Technology Control. The bureau’s mission: suppress the truth of sudden technological progress and prevent the social upheaval it would trigger.

  • Can anyone just install their stuff on public roads and places in the US right now?

    I'm wondering, because that's a big no-no here in Germany, as it would result in a mess. Permits are not a problem though, for sensible requests.

    • Yes, scooters did that. In the US, you are far better off to just do it, then say sorry instead of asking permission.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jythie ( 914043 )
      It can vary, but yeah, the basic problem is a lot of 'disruptive' companies are basically just setting up products using public spaces because there is no catch-all law that covers such use. While Americans like to complain about regulation and 'asking permission', the legal system is set up around things being permitted unless narrowly defined as prohibited. The US has a very reactive (rather than proactive) legal system, so you have to show that something is ongoing and a problem before the law kicks in

      • A additional problem that pops up is that the politicians in charge of the area are not familiar with their own set of laws.
        "Ban it!" they might say, but the realities go much deeper. With something like upscaled kickbike scooters you have to:
        1. Deploy it somewhere
        2. Fetch it from somewhere
        3. Riders need to ride them, which follows quite a bit of regulation
        4. They rely on existing infrastructure, like roads, sidewalks, pavement, mobile signal 3G/4G
        The reality is that if somebody yelled "stop" with enough ef

  • No (Score:2)

    by BrendaEM ( 871664 )
    Though, it might have helped he steam-train keep its place on top to the transportation world.

  • Government (Score:2, Insightful)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 )

    Government is the nastiest and greediest and most self centered and dangerous capitalist. If you donâ(TM)t like capitalism, socialism is basically monopoly-of-one capitalism with a dollop of corruption added for good measure. When the government owns the police and owns the means of production they will use it to use and screw you real hard. Government will become a money and power hub for the corrupt and elite. Governmentâ(TM)s role should not interfere with companies. These regulations hurt the

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      All new law for years favors the big over the little. Something "about it's a club...and you ain't in it."

  • Greasy palms (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) on Monday October 14, 2019 @10:40AM (#59305744) Homepage

    I see this as nothing more than another palm to grease. I get the reasoning behind it, I just don't trust any politician in SF ( or anywhere, really ) to implement it without corruption.

    • I see it as leftist authoritarians just being leftist authoritarians, and not being able to anticipate any result other than their own 'good' intentions.

  • They've got it completely backwards (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Monday October 14, 2019 @10:52AM (#59305784)
    This is precisely what government is *not* supposed to do. They're envisioning a society where you can't do anything unless government allows it. Regulation is the default state, freedom only allowed at the government's discretion. This is the model of communist North Korea, the Third Reich, and every other dictatorship in history.

    It's supposed to be the other way around - you can do anything unless government prohibits it. Freedom is the default state, regulation added only when freedom is found to be problematic.

    • It's supposed to be the other way around - you can do anything unless government prohibits it. Freedom is the default state, regulation added only when freedom is found to be problematic.

      I'd limit regulation to when demonstrable harm has been caused. There are plenty of yahoos that find someone saying mean words or own a firearm to be "problematic" that would have no problem shredding the Bill of Rights because they're tyrannical little monsters at heart. I think before we teach future generations anything, we should make sure that "Mind your own fucking business and let people do their own thing." is an important lesson to impart.

  • In a densely-populated urban environment like San Francisco, it doesn't take much to disrupt the balance of things, and the disruption causes ripples throughout the city. New technologies are very often intentionally disruptive to begin with. This law is a response to that and probably isn't going to turn out to be perfect but at least they're not ignoring the problem. I'd reserve your criticism of it until the ripples the law will cause have a chance to even out. Chances are they'll make admendments to it.

    • pfft, you're talking about a place where it's legal to squat in front of a restaurant door and take a shit. do you really thing a place of filthy savages like that has "a balance of things"?

      They worry about small problems while walking through a pile of parasite, germ and insect infested feces. They don't have the mental faculties or reasoning abilities to tackle tech problems when they can't master basic common sense hygene and cleanliness.

      • If there's any shits being taken anywhere, it's you on Slashdot, every time you click 'submit'. Try being factual instead.
  • ... reactive.   He'll, even the 10 commandments were a reaction to a specific environment.

    So, rather than construct a law that sounds like it would inhibit innovation, just pass the specific laws that are required to inhibit the specific behavior that is identified.
  • Sounds like the model for the German socialist political system.

  • And wants more loot snatched from the pockets of the people of SF

  • Trump is right, we need a wall. right down the eastern borders of California. The whole fukken state is a loss.
  • Tired of CA laws, regulation and politics over your innovative brand?
    Past generations had to move to CA to escape laws and big gov.
    Now CA has gone full big gov its time to invest in more pro business states.
    Take your skills, ability and money and move away from CA.
    To better states that dont want to control your cafeteria, your workers, your internet, your speech and now your very own tech.

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close