> People are rightfully worried about "you followed the law completely but we don't like it so massive fines!"
That seems largely independent of how precise/vague the laws are, if you're expecting the enforcing party to find a way to get you regardless.
The 'defence' here seems to be that you can make a decent argument that you've taken appropriate measures to conform with your [reasonable] interpretation of the rules.
The regulator can object (and possibly penalise you) if they think you're not acting in good faith, or you have a grossly unreasonable interpretation of those rules. You can object to an unfair interpretation of the rules by the regulator as well.
Either way, if The Powers That Be want you nailed to a wall, they'll find a way, this particular regulation or not.
That seems largely independent of how precise/vague the laws are, if you're expecting the enforcing party to find a way to get you regardless.
The 'defence' here seems to be that you can make a decent argument that you've taken appropriate measures to conform with your [reasonable] interpretation of the rules.
The regulator can object (and possibly penalise you) if they think you're not acting in good faith, or you have a grossly unreasonable interpretation of those rules. You can object to an unfair interpretation of the rules by the regulator as well.
Either way, if The Powers That Be want you nailed to a wall, they'll find a way, this particular regulation or not.