This is addressed at a few different points in the article, I found this bit particularly insightful:
> So what happens in practice is politicians write a vague law. Bureaucrats turn that law into very detailed (but often still vague) specific rules. Those rules might or might not be “legal”, but nobody want to risk fighting them in court. If the regulations are particularly ridiculous or likely to be overturned if challenged, prosecutors may quietly stop bringing cases. But the regulations still sit there on the books. And people still usually pay attention to them, because why risk it?
This specific quote from the article made me think of lawmaking - the more detailed the law the harder it is to pass (someone can always fine something to nitpick). Therefore, laws are best at establishing goals, principles, guide rails, etc. Nothing is perfect but the way in which laws are implemented SHOULD remain a separate part of the law passage.
Separate rant: I live on the west coast and am annoyed when I vote because of the number of ballot measures. None of them are sufficiently detailed and fall victim to vague language that's open to interpretation. I'd rather "hire" law makers to do the hard work of details law creation.
Nah. There's no valid reason for lawmakers to delegate so much authority to bureaucrats. We should eviscerate the administrative state and if legislators want to prohibit something then they ought to specifically write it down. If that means it becomes harder and slower to pass new laws then that's fine. It should be a careful and deliberative process.
Some of that vagueness is intentional and not always for nefarious reasons either. When getting my the FCRA cert, there definitely a few requirements that were obviously very open ended so the gov could either pursue a potential unforeseen circumstance or not stifle business. The vagaries in laws has always been interesting to me. Unfortunately, I don't remember any definitive examples since I took the test years ago now.
I think the article did sufficient to talk about 'what would happen if one were prosecuted,' given that it's really hard to predict.
What I thought was missing was an acknowledgement of the circumstances that would cause a _prosecutor_ or _other litigant_ to decide to _bring an action to court._
Prosecutors are political, have limited resources, and are ultimately more or less accountable to electoral forces. Their prerogative is (almost) never going after every single person who does an action that is technically illegal. Factors like harm, the reputation of one's actions in their community, and their alignment with the political establishment are going to be considerations.
As written, I could see the article maybe deterring a particularly rules-abiding individual from running a potato-eating weight loss experiment with their roommates. I've seen friends and relatives get all wound up worrying about whether something is technically illegal in some marginal way.
Understanding the human factors in the pipeline between a potentially unlawful action and a consequence for it is really important. All the institutions that get anything done are keenly aware of them.
It is briefly mentioned in the notes at the end that nobody has seemingly ever been prosecuted for this, and the laws are primarily aimed at institutions doing shady stuff rather than individuals wanting to feed their friends potatoes. But yes, the focus definitely isn't on that side of things.
I don't think it's fair to call that a deficiency, though; both the letter of the law and the practical applications are complex and interesting topics in their own right(s?), and either could fill a lengthy article as we see here. Both are welcome! One doesn't preclude the other. I would be interested in reading an article covering what you describe too.
Violations of federal regulations (rules) are usually handled as administrative or civil matters. Prosecution is very rare and only possible for a limited set of rule violations. If you're contemplating doing something in a regulatory gray area then you can ask the competent agency for a formal opinion letter stating whether that thing would or wouldn't be a violation. They are required to issue those letters although it can be a slow process. Once you get an official approval letter that generally shields you against any sort of enforcement action.
> So what happens in practice is politicians write a vague law. Bureaucrats turn that law into very detailed (but often still vague) specific rules. Those rules might or might not be “legal”, but nobody want to risk fighting them in court. If the regulations are particularly ridiculous or likely to be overturned if challenged, prosecutors may quietly stop bringing cases. But the regulations still sit there on the books. And people still usually pay attention to them, because why risk it?