The tricky part here is when someone is steadily stockpiling things which seem likely to cause truly irreparable harm in the future. But that act is not itself causing harm yet. For example, stockpiling tons of sensitive data.
Another example, a mine with a nearly overtopping tailings dam full of toxic chemicals is a disaster that is almost inevitably guaranteed to happen.
But civil law gives little to no method of stopping that disaster until it has already killed countless people, since - as noted - it hasn’t actually happened yet. And there is no actual guarantee that it will! Potential options do exist, but are so time consuming and high risk, good luck.
But it does give methods for those people’s relatives to get compensation after the fact at least. Which is better than some alternatives.
Which is why other types of regulatory frameworks exist, at least in some cases.
Unfortunately, as in the tailings dam case, and the icy sidewalk case, the actual smartest move is to just avoid them all together - somehow. Move? Take a different route?
Not always possible though, and being constantly on the lookout for these things is exhausting and infeasible for most.
Not sure how that is possible privacy law wise though, even for the most alert? Never engage with anyone or give anyone anything true?
