A law might be so sweeping and broadly defined that it is applicable in totally inappropriate situations. It could also be so nitpickingly detailed as to be unusable.
Pota would be one example of a sweeping law; it offers such incredible possibilities for harassment that even some of the people who voted for it have been chucked into the caboose without benefit of habeas corpus.
In cases like Pota, the law obviously needs to be more specifically defined and restricted.
One example of a law that is so nitpickingly detailed that it ends up being a hindrance rather than a help is the IT Act, 1999.
Here the procedures to be followed with regard to acceptable digital signatures are defined all the way down to specific technologies.
Sensitive digital technologies can often change overnight, and outmoded technologies are usually considered unsafe because somebody has found a method of breaching security.
However, changing the Act with respect to acceptable digital signatures will require amendment by Parliament.
It is no coincidence that digital signatures haven
