Last Updated Projects in Technology Regulations
|project id||project title||project type||project status||project scope||address||zipcode||city||county||state||country||description||desired outcome||published by||publishing date||forwarded by||forwarding date||creator||creating date||archived||featured||page id||page title||issue ids||agency ids||official ids||last modified||latitude||request||longitude||initiator cover photo||allow moderator photo upload||pinned solution id||sponsored||banner image||profile image||step ids||active step id||archetype||group id||person id|
|336502||Do We Have Too Much Government Regulation?||Active||Federal||Los Angeles, CA, USA||Los Angeles||Los Angeles County||CA||US||Most references to government regulation are vaguely spoken and vaguely understood. The subject is important, as you will see--so important that some scholars of hugely influential reach weigh regulations, so to speak, how heavy they are--how many pounds they weigh-- in evaluating the health of the economy.
Some time ago on this program, Jack Kemp, at that time secretary of housing under George Bush, told us that in order to build a house in California, one needed 14 different approvals from regulatory agencies. Imagine how many it must take to build an atom bomb.
We have acknowledged that some regulations bump into other regulations and give us paradoxical situations. For instance, to the extent that we want to burn less motor fuel we have to have lighter cars. To the extent that we have lighter cars, more people get killed in accidents. So it's these paradoxes that we are seeking to explore here with our distinguished panel.
|0000-00-00 00:00:00||0000-00-00 00:00:00||wfbjr||2019-06-28 04:24:34||no||0||320110||Proj:336502||115||47003||51158||2019-06-28 20:06:10||34.0522342||No||-118.2436849||Yes||336502||no||Project banner 336502.jpg||0||0||0|
|330342||EU’s Disastrous Internet Law: What Happens Next?||Active||Global||Brussels, Belgium||Brussels||Brussels||BE||In a stunning rejection of the will of five million online petitioners, and over 100,000 protestors this weekend, the European Parliament has abandoned common-sense and the advice of academics, technologists, and UN human rights experts, and approved the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive in its entirety. There’s now little that can stop these provisions from becoming the law of the land across Europe.
The results will be drawn-out, and chaotic. Unlike EU Regulations like the GDPR, which become law on passage by the central EU institutions, EU Directives have to be transposed: written into each member country’s national law. Countries have until 2021 to transpose the Copyright Directive, but EU rarely keeps its members to that deadline, so it could take even longer.
We can expect media and rightsholders to lobby for the most draconian possible national laws, then promptly march to the courts to extract fines whenever anyone online wanders over its fuzzy lines. The Directive is written so that any owner of copyrighted material can demand satisfaction from an Internet service, and we’ve already seen that the rightsholders are by no means united on what Big Tech should be doing. Whatever Internet companies and organizations do to comply with twenty-seven or more national laws – from dropping links to European news sites entirely, to upping their already over-sensitive filtering systems, or seeking to strike deals with key media conglomerates – will be challenged by one rightsholder faction or another.
|Europe’s Internet users can’t depend on the tech companies to fight this. The battle will have to continue, as it has done in these last few weeks, with millions of everyday users uniting online and on the streets to demand their right to be free of censorship, and free to communicate without algorithmic censors or arbitrary licensing requirements.
EU netizens will need to organize and support independent European digital rights groups willing to challenge the Directive in court.
|0000-00-00 00:00:00||0000-00-00 00:00:00||eff||2019-05-10 03:59:05||no||0||319641||Proj:330342||115||47460||51267||2019-09-19 13:00:28||50.8503463||No||4.3517211||Yes||330342||no||Project banner 330342.jpg||0||0||0|
|287323||Privacy Principles For A Modern National Regulatory Framework||Active||Global||Washington, DC, USA||Washington||District of Columbia||DC||US||There are a range of strong privacy, data security, consumer protection, and anti-discrimination laws that exist today. These include Section 5 of the FTC Act and the Clayton Act, as well as more than 15 other federal
statutes and implementing regulations that are sector specific or relate to particular activities. Additionally, there are myriad state laws relating to privacy and data security, enforced by state attorneys general or private litigants, including state data breach notification statutes and unfair and deceptive acts and practices statutes; data security and encryption laws; and a variety of other privacy laws that relate to online privacy, social security numbers, and data brokers. Our member companies comply with these current laws as well as with self-regulatory principles and rules that govern how they operate and do business. However, this array of laws also creates a “patchwork” effect that complicate compliance efforts and lead to inconsistent experiences for individuals.
|Transparency. A national privacy framework should give individuals the ability to know whether and how
personal information they provide to companies is used and shared with other entities, and if personal information is shared, the categories of entities with whom it is shared, and the purposes for which it is shared. → Controls. Individuals should have meaningful controls over how personal information they provide to companies is collected, used, and shared, except where that information is necessary for the basic operation of the business or when doing so could lead to a violation of the law. → Access. Individuals should have reasonable access to the personal information they provide to companies. Personal information may be processed, aggregated, and analysed to enable companies to provide services to individuals. Safeguards should be included to ensure that giving an individual the ability to access their personal information does not unreasonably interfere with other individuals’ privacy, safety, or sec
|0000-00-00 00:00:00||0000-00-00 00:00:00||internetassociation||2018-10-26 04:48:09||no||0||317050||Proj:830319||115||46993||51169||2018-10-26 04:55:09||38.9071923||No||-77.0368707||Yes||526348||no||Project banner 287323.jpg||0||0||0|
|145180||In the Matter of Rural Call Completion||Solved||Federal||Overland Park, KS, USA||Overland Park||Johnson County||KS||US||The FCC's rural call completion data collection, reporting and retention requirements not only are ineffective at addressing alleged rural call completion problems, but also involve substantial compliance costs, and should accordingly be eliminated.||The most effective solution to uneconomically high terminating rates is for the Commission to accelerate the implementation of the bill-and-keep intercarrier compensation mechanism already endorsed by the Commission’s previous orders on intercarrier compensation -- reducing and ultimately eliminating any incentive to engage in traffic routing practices that adversely affect call quality. Therefore, the Commission should accelerate the transition to bill-and-keep for remaining terminating elements, apply transitional terminating rates to the open end of 8YY traffic, and adopt a plan to transition originating access to a system of bill-and-keep. The reduction of rural call completion problems associated with adverse call termination practices is one additional benefit that would arise from the accelerated implementation of bill-and-keep, the Commission should eliminate the data collection, reporting and retention rules, and suspend such rules during the pendency of the instant NPRM. This suspension will cause||0000-00-00 00:00:00||0000-00-00 00:00:00||sprint||2018-10-23 17:43:43||no||0||316990||Proj:382486||115||46961||51127,51128||2018-11-01 23:11:06||38.9822282||No||-94.6707917||Yes||706000||yes||Project banner 145180.jpg||0||0||0|
|934330||Chinese Cybersecurity Law Reform||Active||Global||Shanghai, China||Shanghai||Shanghai||CN||82% American companies doing business in China are "somewhat or very concerned" at how the new data security regulations, which came into effect in June, could impact their business in the world's second-largest economy. Among the most contentious clauses is the new law's mandate requiring what it calls "network operators" and "critical information infrastructure operators" to submit to government security reviews, which some companies fear will involve turning over encryption keys to Beijing.
China’s data policies disrupt communications between a company’s China facilities and its other global operations; stifle cross-border innovation; and increase costs by requiring the installation of duplicative IT infrastructure. Chinese and foreign companies are unable to use many innovative cloud computing solutions in China due to China’s overly restrictive licensing regime. These policies complicate the cost, efficiency, and information security considerations for both foreign and domestic company operations in Ch
|0000-00-00 00:00:00||0000-00-00 00:00:00||uschinabusinesscouncil||2018-04-28 07:48:28||no||0||314010||Proj:397581||115||47463||51112||2018-06-08 11:49:16||31.2303904||No||121.4737021||Yes||92288||no||Project banner 934330.jpg||0||0||0|
|136322||Save Daily Fantasy Sports in Texas||Active||State||Austin, TX, USA||Austin||Travis County||TX||US||The hundreds of thousands of Texans who play daily fantasy sports have their pastimes at risk. On January 19, 2016, Attorney General Abbott unilaterally issued an opinion letter declaring fantasy sports illegal under 47.02 of the Penal Code, misapprehending Texas law and showing a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic facts of DFS. Already, the state has forced out FanDuel, and many DraftKings players have withdrawn as well.||The state of Texas should recognize DFS as games of skill and legally exempt under Penal Code 47.01(1)(B)||0000-00-00 00:00:00||0000-00-00 00:00:00||browntiger421||2018-04-26 04:36:29||no||0||313927||Proj:621916||115||1403,47458||51103,1460||2018-07-25 16:38:20||30.267153||No||-97.7430608||Yes||422113||no||Project banner 136322.jpg||0||0||0|
Top Agencies in Technology Regulations
Top Officials in Technology Regulations