> This is the danger of legislating an exact how. It may be the right thing sometimes, but it can also go sideways.
> If the regulations said banks had to be secure by ‘taking all due care’ and follow ‘best practices’ and such, this wouldn’t be such an issue.
Legislating the outcome is even worse than legislating the means.
American medical care is regulated in the exact manner you describe - a doctor is required to follow the local standard of care, whatever that may be.
This means that every time anyone takes a precaution, it becomes part of the standard of care and must be taken in every case from now until the end of time. If you stop doing it, perhaps because on a cost-benefit analysis it has wildly negative benefits, you're not following the local standard of care and you're wide open to a malpractice suit.
Your preferred legal phrasing is a ratchet; the only outcome it can ever have is insanity.
> If the regulations said banks had to be secure by ‘taking all due care’ and follow ‘best practices’ and such, this wouldn’t be such an issue.
Legislating the outcome is even worse than legislating the means.
American medical care is regulated in the exact manner you describe - a doctor is required to follow the local standard of care, whatever that may be.
This means that every time anyone takes a precaution, it becomes part of the standard of care and must be taken in every case from now until the end of time. If you stop doing it, perhaps because on a cost-benefit analysis it has wildly negative benefits, you're not following the local standard of care and you're wide open to a malpractice suit.
Your preferred legal phrasing is a ratchet; the only outcome it can ever have is insanity.
Legislating outcomes can be even worse than that: https://www.theonion.com/proposed-bill-would-bring-4-000-tro...