The problem is that this isn't legislation about the proper manufacture of bicycles. This is exactly the kind of legislation that governments and the police are looking for, to cut into civil liberties and fortify their own positions of power. This is exactly the kind of law in which the NSA specifically went looking for loopholes, in order to conduct its dragnet warrantless surveillance of American citizens -- and then shielded its exploitation and abuse of the loophole using its secret rubber-stamp court system, effectively making it impossible for the loophole to be actually hammered out in the courts. When a proposed law bumps up against civil liberties and so clearly has the potential for abuse, it's not right to treat it with the same sort of irreverent attitude changes to the tax code or military spending are treated. This is one of those laws where people need to stop and think about what an authoritarian political outsider would do with this kind of power if they were to end up winning the right election. Generic language doesn't belong in laws like this.
My point was essentially that the people who draft laws are very, very smart—smart enough to allow for devious things they want to allow for like NSA warrantless surveillance, fully as a consequence of the text of the law (without that being obvious to your average lawyer), rather than by using "generic language" to provide a loophole to the law (which will be obvious to any pre-law student, and thus to the lawyers working for the opposition when the law is tabled.)
Again, read the text. Is there "generic language" or "a loophole" you could find with ten minutes' close scrutiny, that can't be explained away as "fully pinned down in meaning by case-law" by an average civil lawyer from that country? I doubt it. But might it somehow allow for the trampling of your civil liberties anyway, for reasons that only become clear when you know all the case-law required to macro-expand the law out to its fullest reading, and the totality of the body of law and statute of the relevant country, and the case-laws of their individual interactions? Maybe.
I think, I am smart when it comes to web and software, but I know little about electricity or cooking or 1000 other things. The people, you call smart, proposed to place stop-signs in the web - which sounds good and familiar to general public, but stupid to people who knows how web works. It is not enough to be smart.
Maybe the word I should use is clever. The people who draft laws are very, very clever. This means that they know exactly how to manipulate language and the courts to get the effect they want.
Whether the effect they want is a sensible effect—that has nothing to do with whether they're clever.
A person with a genie in a bottle is normally just "doomed", because genies exploit loopholes. If the person is an experienced, clever lawyer, though, then they're not doomed; they're actually quite powerful. That doesn't mean they'll use their wishes to accomplish anything good for the world, or even good for them personally. They're still a regular, irrational human being with irrational desires—desires for status among their peers, for adoration and worship by the public, for renown and legacy. Etc.
I'm pretty sure that the people who proposed to "place stop-signs in the web" knew what they were doing, and knew what it would accomplish, and wanted to accomplish exactly what the law-as-drafted would accomplish if signed into law. "But it would just make everything worse!" Not for them. Not for their voter-base, at least from the perspective of voting for them again. Not for their lobbyists. Etc. It might make the Internet work objectively worse—but whoever said that politics was about making things better? Regulation mostly serves to make various processes more inefficient and to give those processes higher barriers-to-entry—in a way that makes them safer, or less prone to abuse, or whatever else. Politicians are always thinking in that mode: "something might get worse, but it's a compromise for everyone else—some good, some bad—and a win for me personally!"
