Bad Regulations

I have discovered a class of regulations that does the opposite of what it is supposed to. Basically the lawmakers, with good intentions, creates a rule that cannot be enforced against those who are determined to break it. On the other hand, the rule inconveniences people who break the rule but not with malicious motives. Here is an example: banning photography in underground train stations. It is almost impossible to catch someone if they are trying hard to conceal their actions because every mobile phone is now a camera and provided the photographer is not posing like one, the only way to catch them is to look over everyone phone users' shoulder to confirm they are not breaking the law. On the other hand, there are many benign reasons to shoot away in a station, one of which being teenagers just like taking random pictures and posting them onto MySpace. These people are not doing anything wrong so they do not have to hide their actions, but it is them, not the potential terrorist attack planners, that get caught.

This problem isn't limited to laws -- DRM is a good example. Digital Rights Management is supposed to stop piracy but it never bothers the real pirates. Instead it is customers with legitimate copies that get inconvenienced.

The takeaway message of this post is that for any regulatory scheme to work as intended, you must be able to enforce it against those determined to break them. Failing to do that, the "bad guys" will remain free while the "good guys" will suffer rather than benefit from said regulation.