which would mean things such as something written or spoken, or else no action can be taken is nonsense. I would ask the judge "So by your reasoning if a group of men in black garb, face-masks and carrying weapons are seen coming into the bank nobody should stop them on suspicion of a potential robbery because there is no "evidence" of a plan? Judge we have concepts called crime prevention and not just crime reaction. In the first case we seek to take actions in order to not have something happen. In the second we try to apprehend those who did something and apply punishment. The idea that criminals will somehow provide us with evidence of a plan beforehand is mostly a wishful fantasy as most law enforcement people will tell you. Judge one of the main ways we do prevention is by protecting things ahead of time before a crime can be committed. Judge one of the reasons we do that is because the damage done by the crime may be so severe and widespread that the law may not provide much of a redress and because the perpetrators of the crime may be able to make themselves inaccessible to even that weak measure of what Your Honor may call justice. So no Your Honor it makes no sense when there is huge risk to sit and say no action can be taken because you don't see a plan. Your apology for lacking vision in that regard will be a worthless balm for those people impacted and destroyed."
Judges like this are similar to people in the '30's who watched Hitler move on the Czechs and then said "Well we still don't know what this all means so we shouldn't get involved." The analogy may not be perfect but the result of people having their lives torn apart by financial fraud etc. due to theft of data/identity fraud is not some intellectual exercise for a law review article. It can turn people into homelessness, take their health and cause their deaths. If a bunch of Black Lives Matter folks were converging on the judge's neighborhood in protest I highly doubt if she would feel the need to see evidence of a plan to commit a crime before calling the cops and demanding and expecting protection. This is not to say she is racist it is only to say that lofty "reasoning" goes out the door when the rubber is hitting the road. Easy to sit behind the bench and make rulings like this but quite another to deal with life right in your face. Suddenly people see things in more "need in the moment" ways.
If the judiciary at large were being targeted for their personal data etc. and having it put at risk we can certainly believe there would be no "waiting" before major protective actions were taken. The judge here is simply wrong about having to see a plan before extending protection. Protection can be extended based on the magnitude of the risk. It's done every day by judges across the country in domestic protection orders (many times issued with no evidence of prior acts or threats), orders of protection of financial data in estate matters etc. and in civil litigation between corporations regarding financial matters and intellectual property matters.
= new reply since forum marked as read