Technology is a complex system
Basically any innovation that can disrupt the pecking order of society takes a few years to change
Example people complaining about cars back in the 1900's because they were too noisy since they were used to a certain standard the same applies to legal systems.
That said the solution to this is complicated if we had accelerated laws people would complain they were not given enough input in the process, that said sometimes a business cannot operate with murky rules.
So having a forgiveness period or transition period in a no rule system towards one with rules seems like the best way to handle new technological changes.
Excellent points. Any change in the way regulation is implemented would either take decades of gradual change or a revolutionary overthrow of the current political process.
Where I disagree is in the input people could have with accelerated laws. I think there is the possibility for a simple (front-end) voting system based on technology similar to Bitcoin that would allow every member of a particular jurisdiction the ability to vote on any issue in which they had an interest. New regulations or amendments could be proposed by self regulatory organizations (SRO) or any other interested party.
The biggest dangers I can foresee in this model is that SROs would attempt to pass regulations that suit their capabilities but are very limiting for new start-up competitors. However, this is something that already happens within the current political sphere, and with this system, a rather simple appeal process could be implemented by new competitors. Another concern may be that they will propose regulations that are not stringent enough. This should be mitigated by the voting system, and in instances when it is not, then maybe there could be another body that can appeal regulations that pass, especially if problems arise. This may be in line with your "forgiveness period or transition period" idea.
I agree with your points, what I meant is that input would be decreased but not eliminated with an accelerated law.
We could take keystone XL as an example with the environmental review if I recall correctly around 300 speakers were applying for time and the court deciding to decrease that list to 30 with the qualification that only speakers with an economic interest in the project would be part of those hearings. Difference between a stakeholder and shareholder. That is not to say that there was not a large discussion on the topic but rather it was done to avoid hearing the same points repeated by too many people, and making the process even longer.
A system that sends colored bits has been in the works believe Agora is the example you are referring to about digital voting, allowing for citizens to create referendums and input into the system, as digital technologies improve so will the variety of ways individuals can discuss and provide input to governments to adopt certain policies. Perhaps an overthrow of the current political process in the making who knows.
That said governments tend to have coalitions and interest groups that try to influence and change policies in their favor, and there are problems in the division between Federal State/Provincial and Local laws and these can factor into how the law is applied in practice to technological changes, with Bitcoin examples are the regulatory framework New York is pushing through for Bitcoin and the debates in California Bill over the legalization of Bitcoin as just a few examples.
In legal areas the temptation to bribe someone to change the laws in a less corrupt country makes it difficult to see changes occur quickly due to the separation between the legal and political systems, so different countries would also apply different responses to technological shifts.
It is possible for a set of laws to be changed quickly to address loopholes in the law, but legal systems tend to take a conservative and slow approach before creating a new set of rules. The biggest concern with accelerated laws is that a government uses it to bypass all opposition and get something written into the book. Since history shows it becomes much more difficult to repeal a law than amend it once it is written into law.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/should-the-courts-be-allowed-to-repeal-obsolete-law/254454/Regarding closing off the market to new competitors an accelerated process could hinder and damage technological innovation, examples I would consider would be the Samsung and Apple Lawsuits and patents filed to ensure that new entrants would have difficulty entering into the market. Also why liquidation of assets in the mobile sphere can become so valuable such as Nortel's proprietary patents.
That said sometimes the opposite happens and stagnation occurs examples including Internet providers in Canada being stuck between Telus Bell and Shaw and the mobile phone market being stuck in a monopoly status with new entrants finding difficulty establishing themselves.
It definitely is a complex issue, with more entrenchment as the technology grows and a lack of regulation when new entrants initially entering the market and experimenting with a new technology, finding that balance through committees etc and how long it takes to address a problem and develop a new framework is something needed in the digital age.
A change of the mechanisms by which laws are made for new developments.
