And just for an, albeit small, recent example [1], where there could easily exist better solutions, and the regulation could be worded more generally instead of giving specific mandates.
I'm sure there are more and much better examples, but as with everything we humans do, there are good practices and bad practices.
[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/14/502082110/...
Just to give you one example that hits very close to home: the EU parliament recently start this push for companies that provide OTT communication services (Whatsapp, Skype, Viber, etc...) to comply to phone companies regulations.
Among other things, this would mean that all of the companies that provide end-to-end encryption would simply have to stop doing it, given that phone companies need to be able to provide "Lawful Interception".
For instance, there's nothing in that sort of regulation that prohibits any innovation on encryption that would reconcile the user's reasonable expectation of privacy with the authorities' wish to have access to the user's communications.
And the issue of appropriate and adequate safeguards of such innovation so that the authorities themselves don't misuse it, is yet another issue altogether.
Encryption was an innovation. Communication that's private as a matter of technology rather than as a matter of legislation is an innovation.
Along the same lines: recording and time-shifting video and audio was an innovation. Enshrining the state of copyright law at the time would have prohibited it.
Innovation often does things that existing developers, users, and regulators didn't anticipate.
> For instance, there's nothing in that sort of regulation that prohibits any innovation on encryption that would reconcile the user's reasonable expectation of privacy with the authorities' wish to have access to the user's communications.
There's nothing in that sort of regulation that prohibits perpetual motion machines or time travel, either. The resolution of those two expectations is that one side loses and the other wins; the only question is which.
I don't believe that for a second. Innovation is constantly happening.
This is a prime example of how free capitalism will never regulate itself. Sure, you can vote with your dollar from what you know, but odds are you'll never find out about most of the crap a company pulls.
Too much regulation is obviously stifling to innovation as well. I don't have an answer, but I believe the solution lies somewhere in the middle, as with most things.