That's a good thing. It means the regulator can't issue instant fines for non-compliance except in the very worst most obvious cases. Because of this planet sized gap they need to ask everyone else to come into compliance before issuing the fine.
> It means the regulator can't issue instant fines for non-compliance
The regulator interprets the gap. "Planet-sized gap" means the regulator can choose to be lenient or capricious based on their own preferences. That kind of uncertainty is anathema for modern businesses. (It's also beneficial to those who pay to build relationships with said regulators.)
> The regulator interprets the gap. "Planet-sized gap" means the regulator can choose to be lenient or capricious based on their own preferences. That kind of uncertainty is anathema for modern businesses. (It's also beneficial to those who pay to build relationships with said regulators.)
This is classic anti-regulation BS. I would like to see a regulation which did not have this issue brought up against it. Heck, isn't this the core of the anti-regulation camp? Clearly though, regulations have not destroyed the world...
Technically, it will be the courts who (ultimately) interpret the gap, and it's worked so far for other standards like 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Courts have a tendency to be less capricious than a regulator.
I'd even go so far as to argue that "reason" is one of those things where specific examples can illustrate, but no more. Especially with regards to technology -- what is reasonable today, can be unreasonable tomorrow (eg: SHA1).
In the meantime, I'm positive that as of right now, 99% of the interpretation is performed by the data processors, and in most cases to their own benefit.
I could fit a planet into that "reasonable means" caveat.