Regulation and Deregulation of Industry

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Tesla Self-Driving System Will Be Investigated by Safety Agency

      by

      The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration said it was looking into what Elon Musk’s electric car company called the full self-driving system.Tesla’s plan to build fleets of self-driving cars suffered a setback on Friday when the main federal auto safety regulator said it was investigating whether the technology was to blame for four collisions, including one that killed a pedestrian.The regulator, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, said it was examining whether the software, which Tesla calls supervised full self-driving, had safeguards in place to require drivers to retake control of their cars in situations the autonomous technology could not handle on its own.As sales of Tesla’s electric cars have slowed, Elon Musk, the company’s chief executive, has staked the company’s future on software that allows cars to navigate, steer and brake without human supervision. Last week, the company held an event at the Warner Bros. studios near Los Angeles to unveil what it called a cybercab, which Mr. Musk promised would be able to ferry passengers without a human driver.But such software has faced persistent criticism from regulators and safety experts who say it does not do enough to make sure drivers remain alert and ready to take over if the system makes a mistake. Tesla faces numerous lawsuits from people who blame the software for injuries or deaths of loved ones.Tesla did not respond to a request for comment.The crashes highlighted by the safety agency on Friday took place when road visibility may have been limited by glare from the sun, fog or dust, the federal safety agency said. Tesla’s self-driving software depends on cameras to operate, unlike other manufacturers who also use radar or laser technology that are often better at detecting objects and people when the view is obscured by poor weather or bright sunshine.The agency said it would “examine the system’s potential failure to detect and disengage in specific situations where it cannot adequately operate.”In one of the collisions, a pedestrian died. In another, a person was injured, the agency said.The investigation covers 2.4 million Tesla vehicles, including cars manufactured as far back as 2016. All of Tesla’s passenger models are involved, the agency said, including the Model 3 and Model S sedans, the Model X and Model Y sport utility vehicles, and the Cybertruck.Federal officials have also been investigating a less capable Tesla system known as Autopilot for several years. These investigations may not survive if former President Donald J. Trump is elected next month. Mr. Trump has said he will appoint Mr. Musk, one of his most prominent supporters in the business world, to lead a “government efficiency commission.” More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Outlines Google Search Changes It’s Weighing in Antitrust Case

      by

      They include making Google’s data available to rivals and forcing it to break off parts of the company, the Justice Department said in a court filing.The Justice Department said Tuesday night that it was considering asking a federal court to force Google to break off parts of the company or change its practices in order to eliminate its monopoly in search, moves that could redefine the $2 trillion company’s core business.In a filing, the government said it could ask the court to require Google to make the underlying data that powers its search engine available to competitors.It said it was considering asking for “structural” changes to Google to stop the company from leveraging the power of its Chrome browser, Android operating system or Play app store to benefit its search business. But it stopped short of identifying what those changes could be.“Google’s anticompetitive conduct resulted in interlocking and pernicious harms that present unprecedented complexities in a highly evolving set of markets,” the government said in its filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. “These markets are indispensable to the lives of all Americans, whether as individuals or as business owners, and the importance of effectively unfettering these markets and restoring competition cannot be overstated.”Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s vice president of regulatory affairs, said in a blog post in response to the filing that the company was concerned the Justice Department was “already signaling requests that go far beyond the specific legal issues in this case.”In a landmark ruling in August, a judge on that court, Amit P. Mehta, said Google “is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly.” It crossed a line when it paid companies like Apple and Samsung billions of dollars to be the automatic search engine in web browsers and on smartphones, Judge Mehta ruled in the case, U.S. et al. v. Google.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Biden to Sign Bill Allowing Chip Projects to Skirt Key Environmental Review

      by

      The legislation, which would weaken federal environmental reviews for certain semiconductor manufacturing projects, has divided Democrats.More than two years ago, President Biden signed a law that aimed to ramp up the nation’s production of semiconductors by offering generous subsidies and tax credits to companies. Since then, chip manufacturers have invested billions of dollars into new plants across the country.But industry groups, along with federal officials, have long warned that lengthy federal environmental reviews could delay manufacturing projects for months or years, which could slow the country’s ability to scale up its chip manufacturing capacity.In the coming days, Mr. Biden is set to sign a bill that would weaken federal environmental reviews for certain semiconductor manufacturing projects that receive subsidies through the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act. The bill, which has divided Democrats, underscores the challenges facing Mr. Biden as he tries to advance his economic agenda alongside his ambitious climate goals.The legislation would exempt qualifying chip projects from reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, which requires federal agencies to assess the potential environmental effects of proposed major federal actions before they can proceed. The House passed the bill last week, and the Senate unanimously passed it in December.Proponents say the legislation would help to expedite the construction of chip manufacturing facilities, which would strengthen the U.S. economy and help to reduce the nation’s dependence on other countries for critical chips that can power items as varied as smartphones, cars and weapons systems. They say that projects will still have to comply with various federal, state and local environmental regulations and permitting requirements.Democrats who oppose the bill, however, say it would allow companies to skirt an important step aimed at reducing potential harms to the environment and workers. They argue that taxpayer-funded projects should be subject to a more holistic federal environmental review process, which would allow for more transparency and community input.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      California Passes Law Protecting Consumer Brain Data

      by

      The state extended its current personal privacy law to include the neural data increasingly coveted by technology companies.On Saturday, Governor Gavin Newsom of California signed a new law that aims to protect people’s brain data from being potentially misused by neurotechnology companies.A growing number of consumer technology products promise to help address cognitive issues: apps to meditate, to improve focus and to treat mental health conditions like depression. These products monitor and record brain data, which encodes virtually everything that goes on in the mind, including thoughts, feelings and intentions.The new law, which passed both the California State Assembly and the Senate with no voter opposition, amends the state’s current personal privacy law — known as the California Consumer Privacy Act — by including “neural data” under “personal sensitive information.” This includes data generated by a user’s brain activity and the meshwork of nerves that extends to the rest of the body.“I’m very excited,” said Sen. Josh Becker, Democrat of California, who sponsored the bill. “It’s important that we be up front about protecting the privacy of neural data — a very important set of data that belongs to people.”With tens of thousands of tech startups, California is a hub for tech innovation. This includes smaller companies developing brain technologies, but Big Tech companies like Meta and Apple are also developing devices that will likely involve collecting vast troves of brain data.“The importance of protecting neural data in California cannot be understated,” Sen. Becker said.The bill extends the same level of protections to neural data that it does for other data already considered sensitive under the California Consumer Privacy Act, such as facial images, DNA and fingerprints, known as biometric information.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      A Patchwork of Cannabis Laws Creates Health Risks, Study Finds

      by

      A new report calls for public education and closing of legal loopholes to keep the public safe.The NewsAs more states have legalized the sale of cannabis, a fractured and inconsistent legal framework has emerged across the country that has prioritized sales income and tax revenue over public health, a new report finds.The report, issued Thursday by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, describes an “urgent need for a coordinated public health response.” The academies, a nonprofit advisory group of the nation’s leading scientists, said that such a response should include a federally led campaign to educate parents, children and others about the risks of a drug that is increasingly potent.Among the other suggestions, the report also calls for a lifting of research restrictions on cannabis. In recent years, many claims have been made about the medicinal and other health effects of the drug but often without substantiation from science.Even as a patchwork of laws and regulations have emerged, the potency of cannabis products has surged.Cindy Schultz for The New York TimesPotencyCurrently 24 states, the District of Columbia and two U.S. territories have legalized the sale of cannabis for recreational use, according to the National Conference on State Legislatures. In 13 other states, cannabis is legal for medicinal use.Even as a patchwork of laws and regulations have emerged, the potency of cannabis products has surged, as measured by the growing concentration of THC, the main psychoactive compound in cannabis. The rapid increases have left the public unaware of the health risks, particularly to young people, pregnant women and seniors, according to Yasmin Hurd, director of the Addiction Institute at the Icahn School of Medicine and the vice chair of the committee that issued the latest report.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Lawmakers Seek Inquiry Into F.D.A. Device Chief’s Potential Conflicts

      by

      A top medical device regulator’s work overlapped at times with his wife’s legal representation of clients with business before the agency.Two members of Congress have asked an inspector general to investigate whether the top federal regulator for medical devices like pacemakers and artificial hips acted ethically in work that overlapped with that of his wife, a leading lawyer for device companies.The lawmakers cited an investigation by The New York Times that examined the intersection of the work of the regulator, Dr. Jeffrey Shuren of the Food and Drug Administration, and his wife, Allison Shuren, a co-chair of the drug and medical device practice at the prominent Washington office of Arnold & Porter.The two House Democrats who wrote a letter seeking an inquiry are Representatives Anna Eshoo, of California and ranking member of the health subcommittee, and Rosa DeLauro, of Connecticut and ranking member of the appropriations committee.The Times found several instances in which the couple’s work overlapped and could have posed conflicts of interest requiring Mr. Shuren’s recusal. The F.D.A. acknowledged ethics violations, saying that Dr. Shuren should have stepped aside or sought approval to be involved in two matters to “avoid any potential appearance of bias.”“In circumstances such as these,” the congresswomen’s letter to the inspector general, Christi Grimm, said, “the only way to get to the truth and be fair both to the public and Dr. Shuren is through an independent review of the matter to determine whether this is simply an appearance of impropriety or actual inappropriate and unethical conduct.”A spokeswoman for the inspector general’s office of the Health and Human Services Department said that the letter was received Tuesday and that “we are reviewing it for appropriate action.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Newsom Signs Bill That Adds Protections for Children on Social Media

      by

      The California legislation comes amid growing concerns about the impact of cellphones and social media on adolescents’ mental health.Gov. Gavin Newsom of California signed legislation on Friday aimed at protecting minors from social media addiction amid growing concerns about the impact of technology on adolescents’ mental health.The law, which will go into effect in 2027, effectively requires tech companies to make posts on feeds of minors’ social media accounts appear in chronological order as a default, rather than allowing algorithms to curate them to maximize engagement.The bill also prohibits companies from sending notifications to people under 18 during school hours, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on weekdays from September through May, and during sleep hours, between midnight and 6 a.m. The default settings can be changed with the consent of a parent or guardian.“Every parent knows the harm social media addiction can inflict on their children — isolation from human contact, stress and anxiety, and endless hours wasted late into the night,” Mr. Newsom, who has four school-age children, said in a statement on Friday.The move, targeting powerful tech interests in the nation’s most populous state, is part of a nationwide effort to address concern over cellphone and social media use among adolescents. Amid reports of cyberbullying and distraction in classrooms, at least eight states, including Florida and Indiana, have already enacted restrictions on the use of cellphones in school settings. New York put in place a similar law aimed at social media addiction this year.In June, Governor Newsom also called for a ban on smartphone use in all public schools in California. Legislation now before him includes a requirement that the schools devise a policy by July 1, 2026, to limit or prohibit smartphones during the school day, though most school districts already have cellphone policies.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Qualcomm Asked Rival Intel if It Would Consider Sale

      by

      While Intel has struggled in recent years, other chipmakers are thriving because of a boom in demand.The chipmaker Qualcomm has approached its rival Intel in recent days about the possibility of acquiring the slumping Silicon Valley giant, two people familiar with the matter said Friday, requesting anonymity because the talks were confidential.Qualcomm has not yet made an official offer for Intel, one of the people said, and the obstacles to a deal remain steep. Any deal would likely draw significant regulatory scrutiny, given the mammoth size and national security importance of both chip companies. It is unclear whether regulators would allow Qualcomm to buy Intel without taking on its struggling foundry business, and it remains equally unclear whether Qualcomm would want to take on that complex endeavor. A deal would also be costly. Intel, which has seen its shares fall nearly 40 percent over the last year, has a market capitalization of $93 billion. Qualcomm, which has seen its shares rise 55 percent, has a market value of $169 billion. Qualcomm and Intel, through spokeswomen, both declined to comment. The Wall Street Journal earlier reported Qualcomm’s approach. That any chip-making rival would consider trying to buy Intel would have been inconceivable a decade ago. But years of management issues and whiffs on technology transitions have weakened what was once one of Silicon Valley’s most powerful companies.Intel missed out on selling chips for mobile phones and has failed to capitalize on the boom in artificial intelligence, a field rival Nvidia now dominates with specialized chips used in data centers. Intel’s chip manufacturing operations, once the most advanced, also lost a technology lead to Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company.Intel’s problems were underscored in early August, when it announced a $1.6 billion quarterly loss and plans to cut 15,000 jobs. The company, the largest planned recipient of federal financing under legislation called the CHIPS Act, on Monday announced other moves that include plans to pause the setting up of new plants in Germany and Poland.Qualcomm, based in San Diego, is a leader in cellular technology and provides chips used in flagship smartphones from companies such as Apple and Samsung Electronics. Unlike Intel, Qualcomm has never operated factories, a costly business that most chip designers avoid. So it would seem more likely to be interested in the Intel operations that design chips, as well as its broad expertise in PC software and channels for selling those systems, said Patrick Little, a former Qualcomm executive who now is chief executive of SiFive, a Silicon Valley start-up that sells rival microprocessor designs.“Those are things Qualcomm would have to mature on their own over time,” Mr. Little said. “If they worked with or somehow had a piece of Intel that could accelerate that part of their strategy.”Any effort to buy Intel would likely face a tough antitrust review and would be scrutinized closely on national security grounds, since its design and manufacturing operations are important for defense applications and overall U.S. competitiveness in semiconductors.Lauren Hirsch reported from New York and Don Clark from San Francisco. More