Good laws should also "scale out" into unknown complexity and situations.
For example, every german has a right to control pictures of their own self, and the way the law was worded, it already applied an idea on the legality of sharing/distributing deepfakes of regular citizens.
However, this kind of generalization requires very careful wording. Every single word and every single statement will be examined for inclusion and exclusion of situations across many court cases. This means it's hard to formulate these laws.
And then you rely on age-old, court- and battle-proven formulations... even if they are clunky and not intuitive.
The scalability when further out sounds fundamentally like a coin-flip with future technologies, for if it makes sense or not. Three dimensional cameras of regular citizens being covered would be a hit. But what about misses, like say if artificial eyes became a norm would looking at someone technically be a violation under the law because you are technically recording them without permission even if it is just to a small operating buffer before it is passed to the optic nerve?
If we stay in this example - and I am neither Judge nor Lawyer, so I'm just a layperson: To be specific, every citizen has the right to control the distribution of their own image. Merely taking a picture is not illegal, except for certain areas of "highest privacy", like a bathroom in your home. It only becomes problematic if the picture is distributed. For example, this is why many concerts include waivers that you agree for your picture to be distributed in the context of this concert.
Thus, an artificial eye recording -- and even recording to an SD card -- would be no problem.
And that is how a good law should be written: It should be written with the rights, duties and protection of citizens involved so it allows the judges to make new technology fit into the framework of the rights of the people.
And sure, it may fail at times. But that is what appeals and adjustments are for.
For example, every german has a right to control pictures of their own self, and the way the law was worded, it already applied an idea on the legality of sharing/distributing deepfakes of regular citizens.
However, this kind of generalization requires very careful wording. Every single word and every single statement will be examined for inclusion and exclusion of situations across many court cases. This means it's hard to formulate these laws.
And then you rely on age-old, court- and battle-proven formulations... even if they are clunky and not intuitive.