I don't the think we need this. It follows the strategy of "just create one rule and penalty for everything bad that can be done." The result is more regulation

I don't the think we need this. It follows the strategy of "just create one rule and penalty for everything bad that can be done." The result is more regulations than can ever be learned, except by total specialists that devote their entire career to compliance in one particular area, huge enforcement costs, and typical government incompetence (we have clean water regulations, doesn't stop them from being broken constantly). IMHO, a better solution is to create legislation that forces software to be sold and distributed under a set of public, common terms. If the rest of the market worked the way software does, everytime you went into a restaurant, bought a book, or used a photocopier you first would sign a long contract freeing that business of any liability whatsoever. If I go to a restaurant and the Food poisoning kills my family, I can sue them. If I buy a book at the store, the store cannot mandate that I not read the book on Sunday. If you buy the book on Amazon Kindle, they are free to stipulate pretty much anything. If software and digital products were sold with universal, reasonable terms, companies and individuals that were damaged by grossly negligent behavior could sue and have those damages repaid to them. This incentivizes companies to behave better. It is also more general purpose. We don't have to add one new regulation for every way a company can possibly be grossly negligent.