New regulations could limit Didi’s taxi on-demand service in China’s leading cities

There’s problems in China for ride-sharing services soon after authorities in Beijing and Shanghai agreed to institute new regulations that could significantly reduce the driver pool for solutions like Didi Chuxing and Uber.

According to rules proposed in October that have now been adopted by each cities’ regulators, taxi on-demand services can only use drivers who are registered to live in either city. The regulations are not effective immediately, but they could deal a significant blow to Didi and Uber simply because appropriate now it is estimated that a considerable percentage of their fleet of cars are not registered in either city. The exact numbers are not known but the The New York Times reported that, for example, less than ten,000 of Didi’s 410,000 active drivers in Shanghai have permanent residency papers.

The system is identified as ‘hukou’ and it was instituted to prevent floods of folks coming to huge cities from rural locations. Despite that, numerous men and women who reside in Beijing and Shanghai do so without having papers. Since numerous of these unofficial citizens constitute the workforce behind on-demand services and taxi apps, the regulations could create a worrying predicament for Didi and other people.

Didi, which is in the process of completing the acquisition of Uber China, didn’t directly comment on the local rule when we asked. As an alternative, its response focused on other components of the ride-sharing regulations, which were amended with less aggressive terms this summer and now no longer consist of restrictions over the price and quality of automobiles.

“These rules are a considerable improvement towards a a lot more sensible and liberal framework. For instance, Beijing will introduce a 5-month-long transition period. Shanghai lowers the wheelbase requirement from 270 CM to 260 CM [enabling cheaper vehicles amongst ride-sharing fleets], while scrapping the initial proposal for emission floors. There will be adequate time for adaptation, and far more economy and environmental-friendly cars enter the service,” a Didi representative told TechCrunch.

The regulations have been amended multi times because their initial inception final year and, with Didi doubtless lobbying difficult and utilizing the contacts amongst its investor base, it remains to be seen if the nearby driver rules will come into force as they presently stand right now. Whilst, on the plus side, several of China’s smaller cities are adopting the suggestions much less aggressively than Beijing and Shanghai.

TechCrunch

Yes the UK now has a law to log web users’ browsing behavior, hack devices and limit encryption

2016 has been a very good year to bury very negative news. And political distractions maybe clarify why a bill that has been described as the most extreme surveillance legislation every single passed in a democracy has these days passed into law in the UK never having faced substantial opposition.

It will come into force next year, soon after emergency surveillance legislation put in spot by the prior coalition government, with even less parliamentary scrutiny than the IP bill was afforded, sunsets at the end of December.

The Investigatory Energy Act, as it now is, creates an updated framework for state surveillance capabilities, enshrining in law investigatory powers that had previously been authorized in the shadows, by means of a patchwork of obscure legislative clauses.

Some capabilities were only avowed in parliament in current years, following the 2013 Snowden disclosures — and deemed by the UK intelligence agencies’ personal oversight court to have been illegally operated as a outcome.

The new law also brings in a new requirement: that communications service providers harvest and retain logs of the digital solutions accessed by all their customers for a complete year. This log is accessible to a wide-range of government agencies, not just law and intelligence agencies. Access to the log does not require a warrant.

Although combating terrorism has been the government’s explanation for the require for the surveillance powers set out in the legislation, they have never ever adequately explained how a senior exec functioning in fraud and error solutions at the Department for Function and Pensions, for instance, may well be actively engaged in a War on Terror.

Privacy issues are not the only problem either. A enormous security concern is what the legislation implies for encryption — offered it hands UK authorities the energy to call for a business remove encryption. Or limit the rollout of end-to-end encryption on a future service. Raising the specter of backdoors damaging trust in UK companies — as properly as risking the safety of user data.

The law also sanctions state hacking of devices, networks and solutions, like bulk hacking on foreign soil. And makes it possible for the safety agencies to keep massive databases of personal data on U.K. citizens, which includes individuals suspected of no crime. Concerns stay over how data harvested by domestic intelligence agencies might be shared with foreign equivalent agencies in other countries (and therefore vice versa, as a workaround for any domestic surveillance limits).

The government claims a ‘double lock’ authorization method that loops in the judiciary to signing off intercept warrants for the very first time in the UK, along with senior ministers, bolsters against the danger of the “most intrusive investigatory powers” being misused. Critics question this, arguing judges will just be rubberstamping warrants on process, not interrogating the proportionality of the substance.

The oversight court for UK intelligence agencies also has however to rule on the proportionality of the law’s so-referred to as bulk measures — it’s due to do that subsequent month, when it will also be ruling on the legality of the powers with the wider European Union context. Rather also late to be factored into the IP bill’s parliamentary scrutiny, nonetheless.

Challenges to the legislation at the European level are most likely, given European courts have ruled against bulk collection. Despite the fact that the UK’s future within the EU is now crowned by a Brexit query mark — so regardless of whether UK law will be bound by any European legal judgements condemning the new surveillance law remains to be seen.

A petition to parliament to repeal the IP Act has currently passed a lot more than 140,000 signatures — exceeding the one hundred,000 signature threshold exactly where parliament must think about debating a petition. But given the lack of debate in parliament the very first time round it’s tough to see the majority of MPs who backed the bill all of a sudden waking up to the reality they sleepwalked into a surveillance state…

Featured Image: r. nial bradshaw/Flickr Beneath A CC BY 2. LICENSE
TechCrunch