The examples are so horrendous I thought it was satire. I can’t wait for genome, cryptocurrency, and nuclear power startups to “move fast and break things” and screw up so badly and remind us why we had these regulations to begin with.
The NRC (and most other regulatory bodies) predate Chevron deference, so you should count on them sticking around and still doing their thing. A nuclear startup could try taking them to court to circumvent all their rules and build naked nuclear piles in residential neighborhoods or something, but even if they got a federal judge to go along with that, it should be an easy political win for legislators to smack it down with some new more specific laws.
And although the regulatory interpretation of those laws could also be challenged in court, successfully doing so shouldn't be considered a given. Judges generally do have some sense you know, as a class they decide important matters in boring uncontroversial ways across the country every days. The controversial outcomes that make news cycles are newsworthy specifically because they're unusual.
Than the United States Congress? They're absolutely more effective. Congress may have been an innovative design in 1787, but it's grown into such a pile of misaligned incentives that it's almost completely dysfunctional.
As for corruption, I suspect agencies may be more or less corrupt on an individual basis. I don't have any hard data, but I suspect they're less corrupt on average. The Supreme Court has, repeatedly, given Congress members the go-ahead to be almost as corrupt as they want, while they're harsher on executive branch agencies.
Is 23 And Me supplying you with an analysis of your genome horrendous? Giving medical advice based on that while not being an MD might be a wrong thing, but that's not what's discussed, and it is regulated differently.
Crypto currencies may be a wrong and dangerous thing (paying for stolen goods and hit jobs, etc), but KYC rules are not derived from the Chevron ruling.
Nuclear safety is indeed important, but forcing nuclear power stations to lower their radiation levels below the natural background levels of places like Denver, CO does not seem reasonable, but does seem like an undue burden.
> Is 23 And Me supplying you with an analysis of your genome horrendous?
No, but forever storing it, cross-matching it with others, and eventually leaking this data is horrendous.
If 23 And Me was just a genome analysis for preventive healthcare company you wouldn't be citing it because that's not "exciting" enough but it'd be as useful as it can be without the harmful side of collecting this biometric data at such scale.
But won't a preventive healthcare company be subject to these same risks of cross-matching and leaking?
Also, not that 23 And Me were secretive about all that, they advertised the cross-matching before you order the kit, and data leak risks is something one should automatically consider when sharing any private data with anyone at all.'
If there is any harm done, it's not in telling people how much Neanderthal DNA they have, and not even in cross-matching them when they voluntarily sign up for that.
> But won't a preventive healthcare company be subject to these same risks of cross-matching and leaking?
For cross-matching no, why would they be cataloguing genealogy trees if they didn't provide that service? Or if they did for any necessary further analysis/research (like tracing some evolution of genetic defect) it could be anonymised and discarded after use.
For leaking data, I agree there would be a risk but not providing services that require the genetic data to be available at all times for 23 And Me would lessen the issue. Either simply discard the data when not necessary anymore for the healthcare assessment; or if they wanted to keep it for the convenience of the customer then it could be encrypted with some key only the customer has access to, and which if needed the customer could provide for their service request.
Voluntarily signing up for it shouldn't remove all ethical issues from 23 And Me, a common person as a customer is not an all-knowing being who is informed enough about all the potential risks of giving such data to a company. It's not reasonable to expect that every customer is well informed about that.
Or, it can remind us why we have Congress in the first place.
Another article trending here is talking about what a great power grab it is by the supreme Court, which is true in a sense, but mostly it is saying to the Congress that you actually have to do your job.
Congress did their job. They granted authority to regulatory agencies who are much better equipped to make these sorts of decisions. Regulatory agencies employ scientists and subject matter experts in their relevant fields.
Our congresspeople are a mixture of serious people and clowns who are very good at saying outrageous things to get on television. Even the serious people cannot possibly be well-rounded enough to have the kind of expertise necessary to write perfectly detailed regulations for every possible field.
Could I come up with some regulations related to tech? Sure. But it would be a terrible idea to ask me to write financial, medical, or environmental regulations.
Like I said, Congress did their jobs. Sometimes delegating to experts is the smartest move.
Where congress explicitly delegates authority it will be respected and that is not chevron deference, chevron deference means that when a law is ambiguous it means the court should interpret the ambiguity as congress delegating their authority to the regulator within reason.
It is not possible except in some simple cases to make those laws completely specify every detail and cover every case when dealing with large complex topics, so there will almost always be cases where those executing the law will need to have some gaps filled in order to carry the law.
That was true long before Chevron, true during Chevron, and is still true.
This isn't the end of regulation, this is just the end of unelected agencies making up rules as they please. All this changes is that congress has to do their job.
