A minor correction, the ECHR isn't a part of the EU, it is part of COE (Counsel of Europe) and rules only on the basis of the European Convention of Human Rights not any EU or EFTA law.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
You haven't dealt with the police lately have you?
I was thinking more along the lines of
iMyObject obj = (iMyObject)MyObjectCollection[ObjectThatIWant];
No need to explicitly close or to save anything, just dealing with persistent storage as if it were any other object.
It is not that they didn't cooperate, but rather the police didn't think they where cooperating, at least not fully.
The problem the police has is that can't believe people when they say they don't have something. Imagine if someone killed somebody with a gun then gave the gun to some other-person, and when the police asked that other-person if they had the gun they said no. The police acting on a reasonable belief that they might have the gun, could get a warrant permitting a search for and the seizer of that gun, they wouldn't need to get a warrant if that other-person just gave them that gun. Of course there is still a problem that the other-person might never of had the gun but the police shouldn't just take them on their word.
They wouldn't of needed seize the servers in the case of Auntie. The BBC would cooperate with (and likely be the ones to report it to) the police and hand over logs, there would be no need to seize servers.
They might both have common law, but both France and the former USSR used civil law. Having the same general legal system doesn't mean that they have the same laws or same legal process for that matter.
In the UK they don't normally publish addresses, and they tend in the cases of Judges not to publish their first names even.
If an address was published it would generally be because a crime was committed there, or the police are having problems identifying somebody and are looking someone to come forward with information.
The data protection act comes to mind, they are only use the information for the propose it was obtained, if instance if you obtain someones address to send them personal correspondents, you can't then go around and sell it to junk mailer, or for that matter give it to a lynch mob.
Judges aren't elected in England, they are appointed. Also activist judges don't really exist in the UK, if a judge makes a ruling that is incompatible with law, and gets overturned on appeal then the judge could find their job on the cutting board, and if they had a conflict of interest that they didn't declare they could be tried.
I think we run the risk of exaggerating what the EU does, the EU does some trans-national transport funding, and more general funding of transport system extensions - particularly in the new eastern member states - but it doesn't run the railways.
The railways in Europe are generally owned by state-owned companies and tend to operate in opposite of the US model. The US has IIRC lots of privately owned companies that own and operate the tracks, stations, and freight; and with one state-owned (called am-track or something) that does passenger services. European countries tend to have one state own company that owns and operates the tracks and stations, and in cases like Germany also do passenger and limited freight services, but most rail services are provided by private companies that bid for franchise rights.
But, anyway this is going rather off-topic and dragging on quite a bit.
In short Americans tend to have a large empathise on the individual, whereas post-Enlightenment Europe tends to take the view that society is more important than the individual, and that a powerful state is necessary for a good society.
Well the EU likes competition, that is the very reason that the ECC (a precursor to the EU) was created, but only the right sort of competition.
In terms of tanks and bombs, those are mostly made through the same sort of military industrial complex that the US has. I was thinking more along the lines of railways and the likes of EDF.