The real power of masses of laws that are regularly broken is selective enforcement. When you add lack of privacy to the picture, it can look downright dystopian.
The other way to do is to pass general 'catch-all' laws. Something like the 'obstruction of justice', or 'looking suspicious'. Combine that with total surveilance and selective enforcement and you have a perfect police state.
It gives the state the power to come and arrest you at any time, for any reason, as they will probably find something in your history to convict you of. Yes, most of the time they won't bother, just like insurance companies won't bother checking your illness history for discrepancies, until you become 'inconvinient' to them then they can find any reason to arrest (or deny coverage in case of insurance companies).
In general, as applied to any institution, the rule is to make complicated processes and regulations, such that any particular individual the institution controls, has a very high chance of breaking some of them. That makes it very easy to selectively enforce laws and the institution can choose to enforce based on any reason, legal or not, since there is always a legal 'cover' -- the 'official' broken rule (law).
EDIT: changed "rate" to "chance" in last paragraph
Cardinal Richelieu observed the folly of such laws centuries ago, when he said (liberally translated) "Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, and I will find something in them with which to hang him."
Personally, I like the soundbite I first saw a couple of years ago: if I have nothing to hide, why do you need to watch me?
"The other way to do is to pass general 'catch-all' laws. Something like the 'obstruction of justice', or 'looking suspicious'. Combine that with total surveilance and selective enforcement and you have a perfect police state."
When a co-worker (ex-cop) told me about this, I nearly died laughing at the insane genius of such a thing. He said that, basically, a cop could always find some reason to roust someone they didn't care for, even if in the long run the charge didn't stick.
The way I like to think about it is that the current laws were written with a balance between the text of the law, and the knowledge of those writing them that they could not catch every single infringement, nor do they even necessarily want to.
When you enter a regime where every infringement can be caught, the balance of the laws are broken. Very badly, in fact. Over the centuries we have been allowed to delude ourselves into thinking the law actually says what it seems to say because it was utterly physically impossible to completely enforce them. Our generation is going to have to re-discover the idea that even a broken law isn't worth enforcing unless there's a compelling social reason to do it.
You can already see the movement forming, if you know where to look; the current manifestation is a small movement towards re-enshrining the idea that a violation of the law must be accompanied by "criminal intent". (Which, among other effects, is the end of "ignorance of the law is no excuse", which also has to go. That only applies to natural or moral law; ignorance of the illegality of murder is no excuse. Ignorance of the illegality of importing orchids damn well is an excuse!) But it is small and has a long way to go.
Copyright law was not meant to make it completely impossible to copy anything, ever; it was meant to prevent large-scale infringement on either a personal or business level. It was never really designed to go after every infringer for creating mix CDs of music they already own copies of, even though a strict reading of the law says that's illegal. But where's the social harm in that? (Bearing in mind I said they owned legal copies already.)
The laws don't say what they appear to say, there are hidden caveats based on the physical possibility of enforcement, the humans involved in the justice system, and the impossibility of turning 250% of the population to the task of law enforcement. Until we make these caveats explicit, the law will increasingly become the anti-lottery, winning you the right to a randomly destroyed life for no good reason, and you can't not buy a ticket.
Schools can be really bad on this. One college I went to charged people with "condoning" if they were aware that someone else was breaking the rules and didn't report it. I think this is actually pretty common among private colleges in the US.
Imagine how badly that would be abused if it were a law.
True, it is slightly similar in that you didn't directly commit the crime. Though you do have to have an active role, for example, storing the money after a bank robbery. Another one like this is "accessory after the fact." However, there again, you actually have to take an active role in helping someone you know committed a crime.
The difference with something like the "condoning" rules is that they essentially take away the right to remain silent from the 5th amendment. Of course, they can get away with it because they are just rules at a school.
