[kevsamuel]

Legality is not science, most of the time, the definition of what's wrong is blurry and humans have to debate about it.

[_heimdall]

Laws shouldn't be written without clear lines - how can a person who wants to avoid breaking the law do that if we have an ever growing list of laws full of gray area and blurry lines?

[anon373839]

You’re going to be very unhappy when you learn what common law is. The law that decides a case is written after the fact. (Yes, retroactively!)

[Am4TIfIsER0ppos]

You're not supposed to. The state is always supposed to have a treasure trove of possible crimes they can smack you with.

[immibis]

If you're a big company and the penalty is only a fine... there is not much need to be absolutely sure you don't break the law. It is just another risk, like the risk of a data center catching on fire, that is to be managed, not avoided at all costs. Law for you and me means someone might go to jail and that's worth avoiding all costs, but for a company it just means spending more money or receiving less.

Cases are also more unique. People get murdered "routinely" so everyone has figured out the clear lines. Antitrust doesn't happen as often and each case is unique.

Are you hoping for a world where corporations can find loopholes and it's impossible to punish them for exploiting the loopholes because we can only execute the law strictly like a computer program? Even ethereum smart contracts can be overturned - it happened once.

[snowpid]

does this concern your everyday life?