The voters have decided that they want to do it this way.
No, unless there was a referendum, the people who are supposed to represent the voters have decided that they want to do it this way. Hint: representative government, while generally the least worst alternative, is not perfect, and the people's representatives are not always above corruption.
If you don't see it that way, then you're in the minority. Tough luck.
So even if it were decided by the voters, people aren't allowed to complain about it?
I don't think that's a liberal vs. conservative issue. Liberals would say it's a government responsibility to maintain infrastructure, and conservatives would say the government shouldn't unreasonably burden property owners. In this case they both amount to the same thing.
That cute "contractor from a list provided by the city" sounds more like plain old-fashioned corruption rather than an ideological difference, especially with those contractors doing a lousy job. Why, for example, couldn't you do your own work if you wanted?
The GP wasn't clear what he meant by maintenance. Around here (Long Island, NY) you're also responsible for keeping the sidewalk clear of ice and snow and even for mowing the grass on the strip between the sidewalk and the street. That's reasonable, especially if they don't go totally nuts in enforcing it. Having to pour new concrete for a broken sidewalk is a whole different story.
that's the European approach...
The North American approach
There are 50 countries in Europe, some of them divided into states or provinces with a certain degree of autonomy. Do they all follow the same practice?
There are 23 countries in North America, including Canada divided into 10 provinces, the US into 50 states, and Mexico divided into 31 states. Do they all follow the same practice?
the owners should be able to sell the archaeological finds to the highest bidder to recoup the dig costs
Are you sure that they can't? IIRC that's become an issue because dinosaur skeletons for example can be very valuable. A dino skeleton on your property can be found gold, but it makes it horrible expensive for museums and the like to purchase them. Part of me thinks "your land, your dino", just as a mineral find on your property can be literally a gold mine (assuming you have the mineral rights too). OTOH a market approach to dinos doesn't make much sense because they ain't making any more of them.
Either way the policy should be consistent. I suspect that for a minor find like this, rights to sell wouldn't outweigh dig costs (assuming you can't get your local university to do it for free). Also, there are laws regarding proper respect given to human remains. Sometimes that gets taken to ridiculous extremes, like an Indian tribe claiming rights to a 10,000 year old skeleton, but 400 years is another story. Are people permitted to purchase pre-colonial cemeteries and sell the human remains? Of course not.
It's supposed to be this way in the US with the prohibition against seizure without just compensation. "But that would make environmental regulations way too costly!" Well, then what in god's name is government doing ladling that on private citizens? If IT's So Damned Important To The People...
Whole different story. Most of the complaints about environmental regulations being "effectively a taking" are about people who buy undeveloped land as a form of speculation. That land doesn't have zoning or environmental approval for what they hope it'll be used for some day, but they get upset when such restrictions are placed on it because it kills the possibility of getting rich from their speculation. Screw 'em. Real estate speculation is an utterly unproductive activity. Existing, or even imminently planned uses are almost always grandfathered in when new restrictions are put in place.
The law as written was meant to ensure companies are responsible for the archaeological costs incurred from digging up their land instead of saddling the taxpayer.
I don't see why companies should be saddled with this cost either, unless perhaps they purchased a piece of land knowing ahead-of-time that it was likely to contain archaeological artifacts. In many cases the law already requires the owner to "stand aside" while someone digs up archeological finds. In Rome that happens in about every other construction project. That's enough of a burden. I'm all for archaeology and historical preservation, but it's absurd to stick the land owner with the cost.
OTOH I doubt one would have to pay an archaeologist (can you find them on Craig's List?). A call to your local university history or archaeology department would probably get it done for free.
I believe they help cancer and beat old ladies. Because cancer does not have a purse with Dihydrogen Monoxid inside!!! SICK OLD LADIES!
Don't go smearing all old ladies. Carrying dihydrogen monoxide in their purse necessarily doesn't mean they're dangerous. According to the TSA it takes at least four ounces of any liquid to blow up an airliner.
If they did they'd be tipping off terrorists on how they caught on to them, so the terrorists would revise their communication methods. As they reportedly are doing now, in response to Snowden's revelations.
re: "Reportedly". As reported by whom? The terrorist PR offices?
so the terrorists would revise their communication methods
Any terrorists that didn't figure out years ago that their phone and Internet communications can be monitored are too dumb to be any real threat.
"Think of the children!" is the perfect answer to "Hey, why are you handing all the data to the government investigators?"
Why do they need to answer that question? You're assuming the proles have any power. Besides, in 21st century America, "terrorism" trumps even "think of the children".
As to your 1st paragraph, do you know anyone who disagrees? And if they did, they wouldn't say so.
As to your 2nd paragraph, there was a Slashdot story a while ago (can't find it now) about Google temps who were hired for just that kind of stuff. They were "released" after 6-12 months, and really did have psychological problems because of it. Of course no help or assistance of any kind was offered. What do you think this is, the 20th century?
This will increase child abuse. As soon as it becomes invisible, perpetrators are completely free to do whatever they like, as the public will not be aware it is a problem.
This probably won't do squat to make it less visible, because it's already reasonably well hidden. Any poster of CP that's too dumb to keep it out of the range of search engines has probably already been caught. This is a feel good effort. I can't criticize it, but it won't have much effect one way or the other.
Realistically this is just a feel good effort. No one is going to seriously criticize Google for this, and they can say "we're doing our part". Not that their part really helps anything, but that's not Google's fault.
So that makes one wonder what Google's real motives are.
Good PR. I'm as cynical as the next person, but PR is often the only motive for these things. If they had a sinister motive, they'd just offer to help the NSA some more.
This is about detecting known images (presumably even if altered a bit), not automatically detecting if a heretofore unseen image is CP. From the Google announcement:
Since 2008, we’ve used “hashing” technology to tag known child sexual abuse images, allowing us to identify duplicate images which may exist elsewhere. Each offending image in effect gets a unique ID that our computers can recognize without humans having to view them again. Recently, we’ve started working to incorporate encrypted “fingerprints” of child sexual abuse images into a cross-industry database. This will enable companies, law enforcement and charities to better collaborate on detecting and removing these images, and to take action against the criminals. Today we’ve also announced a $2 million Child Protection Technology Fund to encourage the development of ever more effective tools. [emphasis added]
Which is why I have the created the greatest conspiracy theory of all: "We have a representative government that respects the rule of law, and its direction and actions are controlled via free and fair elections by the people."
There is a difference between a mere conspiracy theory and a wild fantasy that flies in the face of all evidence.
There was no reason to hide it. It's perfectly reasonable to subpoena a person's phone records if they're the subject of an investigation and there is a decent reason for the subpoena. Collecting the phone records of everyone in the country is a whole different story.
you have the public backlash if/when an attack succeeds due to inadequate intelligence gathering
"Intelligence gathering" is much too broad of a term. Call this blanket electronic eavesdropping. If the government could defend this program by citing cases where it foiled a terrorist plot they would. But they can't.
Plain old-fashioned police work and people reporting things that are genuinely suspicious (that does not include your Muslim neighbor saying his prayers in his backyard) are the key, as amply demonstrated by history. Before 9/11 a flight instructor reported to the local FBI field office that it was suspicious that he had students who weren't interested in learning to take off and land. The problem was that FBI headquarters ignored the report. Listening to their own field agents could have averted 9/11, but blanket electronic eavesdropping wouldn't have. The bombing of LAX in 2000 was averted by an alert customs inspector, who didn't find it necessary to "disappear" the wannabee perpetrator. A plain old-fashioned arrest did just fine. The attempted Times Square bombing was averted by a couple of street vendors who reported a car with smoke coming out of it. Etc., etc., etc.
Slashdot Mirror
The voters have decided that they want to do it this way.
No, unless there was a referendum, the people who are supposed to represent the voters have decided that they want to do it this way. Hint: representative government, while generally the least worst alternative, is not perfect, and the people's representatives are not always above corruption.
If you don't see it that way, then you're in the minority. Tough luck.
So even if it were decided by the voters, people aren't allowed to complain about it?
I don't think that's a liberal vs. conservative issue. Liberals would say it's a government responsibility to maintain infrastructure, and conservatives would say the government shouldn't unreasonably burden property owners. In this case they both amount to the same thing.
That cute "contractor from a list provided by the city" sounds more like plain old-fashioned corruption rather than an ideological difference, especially with those contractors doing a lousy job. Why, for example, couldn't you do your own work if you wanted?
The GP wasn't clear what he meant by maintenance. Around here (Long Island, NY) you're also responsible for keeping the sidewalk clear of ice and snow and even for mowing the grass on the strip between the sidewalk and the street. That's reasonable, especially if they don't go totally nuts in enforcing it. Having to pour new concrete for a broken sidewalk is a whole different story.
Can you cite some pertinent examples?
the reason most of this works the way it does in most governments
Without some specific examples, such a claim is way too broad to even be worth considering.
that's the European approach ...
The North American approach
There are 50 countries in Europe, some of them divided into states or provinces with a certain degree of autonomy. Do they all follow the same practice?
There are 23 countries in North America, including Canada divided into 10 provinces, the US into 50 states, and Mexico divided into 31 states. Do they all follow the same practice?
Nowhere in the USA that I've lived ever made the homeowner do anything with the sidewalk in front of their house.
In my state, it's the homeowner's responsibility to maintain the sidewalk.
What state is that?
I don't doubt that happened sometimes, but what was the net effect? No law or policy is ever perfect.
the owners should be able to sell the archaeological finds to the highest bidder to recoup the dig costs
Are you sure that they can't? IIRC that's become an issue because dinosaur skeletons for example can be very valuable. A dino skeleton on your property can be found gold, but it makes it horrible expensive for museums and the like to purchase them. Part of me thinks "your land, your dino", just as a mineral find on your property can be literally a gold mine (assuming you have the mineral rights too). OTOH a market approach to dinos doesn't make much sense because they ain't making any more of them.
Either way the policy should be consistent. I suspect that for a minor find like this, rights to sell wouldn't outweigh dig costs (assuming you can't get your local university to do it for free). Also, there are laws regarding proper respect given to human remains. Sometimes that gets taken to ridiculous extremes, like an Indian tribe claiming rights to a 10,000 year old skeleton, but 400 years is another story. Are people permitted to purchase pre-colonial cemeteries and sell the human remains? Of course not.
It's supposed to be this way in the US with the prohibition against seizure without just compensation. "But that would make environmental regulations way too costly!" Well, then what in god's name is government doing ladling that on private citizens? If IT's So Damned Important To The People...
Whole different story. Most of the complaints about environmental regulations being "effectively a taking" are about people who buy undeveloped land as a form of speculation. That land doesn't have zoning or environmental approval for what they hope it'll be used for some day, but they get upset when such restrictions are placed on it because it kills the possibility of getting rich from their speculation. Screw 'em. Real estate speculation is an utterly unproductive activity. Existing, or even imminently planned uses are almost always grandfathered in when new restrictions are put in place.
The law as written was meant to ensure companies are responsible for the archaeological costs incurred from digging up their land instead of saddling the taxpayer.
I don't see why companies should be saddled with this cost either, unless perhaps they purchased a piece of land knowing ahead-of-time that it was likely to contain archaeological artifacts. In many cases the law already requires the owner to "stand aside" while someone digs up archeological finds. In Rome that happens in about every other construction project. That's enough of a burden. I'm all for archaeology and historical preservation, but it's absurd to stick the land owner with the cost.
OTOH I doubt one would have to pay an archaeologist (can you find them on Craig's List?). A call to your local university history or archaeology department would probably get it done for free.
I believe they help cancer and beat old ladies. Because cancer does not have a purse with Dihydrogen Monoxid inside!!! SICK OLD LADIES!
Don't go smearing all old ladies. Carrying dihydrogen monoxide in their purse necessarily doesn't mean they're dangerous. According to the TSA it takes at least four ounces of any liquid to blow up an airliner.
If they did they'd be tipping off terrorists on how they caught on to them, so the terrorists would revise their communication methods. As they reportedly are doing now, in response to Snowden's revelations.
re: "Reportedly". As reported by whom? The terrorist PR offices?
so the terrorists would revise their communication methods
Any terrorists that didn't figure out years ago that their phone and Internet communications can be monitored are too dumb to be any real threat.
dark internet
FWIW, according to Wikipedia the term you're looking for is 'darknet' or 'deep web'. I love clear terminology.
"Think of the children!" is the perfect answer to "Hey, why are you handing all the data to the government investigators?"
Why do they need to answer that question? You're assuming the proles have any power. Besides, in 21st century America, "terrorism" trumps even "think of the children".
As to your 1st paragraph, do you know anyone who disagrees? And if they did, they wouldn't say so.
As to your 2nd paragraph, there was a Slashdot story a while ago (can't find it now) about Google temps who were hired for just that kind of stuff. They were "released" after 6-12 months, and really did have psychological problems because of it. Of course no help or assistance of any kind was offered. What do you think this is, the 20th century?
This will increase child abuse. As soon as it becomes invisible, perpetrators are completely free to do whatever they like, as the public will not be aware it is a problem.
This probably won't do squat to make it less visible, because it's already reasonably well hidden. Any poster of CP that's too dumb to keep it out of the range of search engines has probably already been caught. This is a feel good effort. I can't criticize it, but it won't have much effect one way or the other.
So that makes one wonder what Google's real motives are.
Good PR. I'm as cynical as the next person, but PR is often the only motive for these things. If they had a sinister motive, they'd just offer to help the NSA some more.
RTFA. They'll do that.
Since 2008, we’ve used “hashing” technology to tag known child sexual abuse images, allowing us to identify duplicate images which may exist elsewhere. Each offending image in effect gets a unique ID that our computers can recognize without humans having to view them again . Recently, we’ve started working to incorporate encrypted “fingerprints” of child sexual abuse images into a cross-industry database. This will enable companies, law enforcement and charities to better collaborate on detecting and removing these images, and to take action against the criminals. Today we’ve also announced a $2 million Child Protection Technology Fund to encourage the development of ever more effective tools. [emphasis added]
True, which means this isn't a solution. It is about as much as a search engine can do though, so it's to Google's credit.
Which is why I have the created the greatest conspiracy theory of all: "We have a representative government that respects the rule of law, and its direction and actions are controlled via free and fair elections by the people."
There is a difference between a mere conspiracy theory and a wild fantasy that flies in the face of all evidence.
There was no reason to hide it. It's perfectly reasonable to subpoena a person's phone records if they're the subject of an investigation and there is a decent reason for the subpoena. Collecting the phone records of everyone in the country is a whole different story.
you have the public backlash if/when an attack succeeds due to inadequate intelligence gathering
"Intelligence gathering" is much too broad of a term. Call this blanket electronic eavesdropping. If the government could defend this program by citing cases where it foiled a terrorist plot they would. But they can't.
Plain old-fashioned police work and people reporting things that are genuinely suspicious (that does not include your Muslim neighbor saying his prayers in his backyard) are the key, as amply demonstrated by history. Before 9/11 a flight instructor reported to the local FBI field office that it was suspicious that he had students who weren't interested in learning to take off and land. The problem was that FBI headquarters ignored the report. Listening to their own field agents could have averted 9/11, but blanket electronic eavesdropping wouldn't have. The bombing of LAX in 2000 was averted by an alert customs inspector, who didn't find it necessary to "disappear" the wannabee perpetrator. A plain old-fashioned arrest did just fine. The attempted Times Square bombing was averted by a couple of street vendors who reported a car with smoke coming out of it. Etc., etc., etc.
With a government like this, it's tough to make a living as a conspiracy theorist anymore.