President Donald Trump's latest executive order, often referred to as a "two for one" rule, will make it extremely difficult for executive agencies to introduce new regulations and may terminate major laws at the Environmental Protection Agency and parts of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, experts told International Business Times. Still, such repeals may be more difficult to enact than the administration thinks. The new action states that for every new regulation introduced to the Office of Management and Budget, two must be "repealed," and the "total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations" must amount to a cost of "no greater than zero." The order does not require simultaneous removal of the two rules set for repeal with the introduction of the new regulation, and exempted national security and military rules, an official told Reuters. But it will certainly make new regulations hard to enact, as it requires agency rules to have zero costs, according to Thomas Lenard, a senior fellow and president emeritus at the Technology Policy Institute, a think tank that focuses on regulation in the information sector.
The government has drawn up a draft bill stipulating tougher regulations on minpaku private lodging businesses, sources said Tuesday. Fearing an increase in noise complaints and other problems with neighboring residents on the back of the increasing number of foreign travelers in Japan using such services, the bill obliges minpaku service providers to adhere to strict new regulations. Operators who breach the new regulations will be urged to suspend or discontinue their business, and they could face punishment of a fine up to ¥1 million or imprisonment of up to six months, should they keep ignoring the rules. The government plans to submit the bill to the Diet in March. Minpaku has become a buzzword as Japan needs to address the shortage of hotels and inns ahead of 2020 when the government aims to attract 40 million tourists from abroad, up sharply from the already record-high 24 million in 2016.
Many people are already using, perhaps without knowing it, tools based on artificial intelligence (AI). Almost everyone probably ignores the absence of laws that govern how it works. We are surrounded by absurd regulations (for example, in Alabama it is illegal to drive while blindfolded; in France, you can't name a pig "Napoleon," etc.), however, there are no guidelines that regulate the use of software for autonomous driving vehicles nor the algorithms that support decision making to prioritize care for hospital patients or that pre-select which job candidates should be interviewed. Fortunately, it seems that our political systems have finally understood the urgency with which we need to apply legislation to this area. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Representatives John K. Delaney (D-Md.) and Pete Olson (R-Texas)-- introduced a bill called The Fundamentally Understanding the Usability and Realistic Evolution of Artificial Intelligence Act of 2017, also known as the FUTURE of AI Act.
The Brazilian government is looking to find ways to regulate new services coming up under the collaborative economy umbrella. Given the impact on traditional services caused by alternatives such as Uber and Airbnb, the Lower House of the Congress created a special group to discuss the creation of a legal framework for the new services. The first session of the special group took place yesterday (30). Over a four-month period, the theme will be debated in public hearings with representatives of the public and private sectors, representatives of the civil society and academia. According to the leader of the special group, congressman Thiago Peixoto, the goal is to come up with recommendations to propose regulations across the various segments of the sharing economy - from ridesharing to crowdfunding - which do not restrict new businesses too much but also do not impact the traditional economy.
For those of you who have been reading my recent articles, I have been focussing my attention on the necessity of regulations in the crypto world. The number of scams among ICOs seems to be growing and on a daily basis, I receive invitations to join another ICO as an'advisor'. I do not have to do anything, just give my name, and reputation, to this'startup' and they will list me as an advisor on their website. Most of the time, they do not have any code, no community, barely a team, a badly-written white paper, hardly any information on their token and why they need a token and if I ask them several critical questions, I never hear back from them. Still, many of these scams manage to raise millions, simply because the'investors' in these ICOs do not care about the product, but simply want to make a quick buck.