<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_27_2317213</id>
	<title>Data Breach Exposes RAF Staff To Blackmail</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1243443720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Yehuda writes <i>"Wired reports, 'Yet another breach of sensitive, unencrypted data is making news in the United Kingdom. This time the breach puts <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/uk-data-breach-makes-royal-air-force-staff-target-for-blackmail/">Royal Air Force staff at serious risk</a> of being targeted for blackmail by foreign intelligence services or others.
The breach involves audio recordings with high-ranking air force officers who were being interviewed in-depth for a security clearance. In the interviews, the officers disclosed information about extra-marital affairs, drug abuse, visits to prostitutes, medical conditions, criminal convictions and debt histories &mdash; information the military needed to determine their security risk.
The recordings were stored on three unencrypted hard drives that disappeared last year.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yehuda writes " Wired reports , 'Yet another breach of sensitive , unencrypted data is making news in the United Kingdom .
This time the breach puts Royal Air Force staff at serious risk of being targeted for blackmail by foreign intelligence services or others .
The breach involves audio recordings with high-ranking air force officers who were being interviewed in-depth for a security clearance .
In the interviews , the officers disclosed information about extra-marital affairs , drug abuse , visits to prostitutes , medical conditions , criminal convictions and debt histories    information the military needed to determine their security risk .
The recordings were stored on three unencrypted hard drives that disappeared last year .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yehuda writes "Wired reports, 'Yet another breach of sensitive, unencrypted data is making news in the United Kingdom.
This time the breach puts Royal Air Force staff at serious risk of being targeted for blackmail by foreign intelligence services or others.
The breach involves audio recordings with high-ranking air force officers who were being interviewed in-depth for a security clearance.
In the interviews, the officers disclosed information about extra-marital affairs, drug abuse, visits to prostitutes, medical conditions, criminal convictions and debt histories — information the military needed to determine their security risk.
The recordings were stored on three unencrypted hard drives that disappeared last year.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119899</id>
	<title>Re:It's no wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243452300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh man, oh man, if I can get a moat, I'm going into politics!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh man , oh man , if I can get a moat , I 'm going into politics !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh man, oh man, if I can get a moat, I'm going into politics!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120095</id>
	<title>Re:It's no wonder...</title>
	<author>sa1lnr</author>
	<datestamp>1243541700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bad as it is, the amount pales into insignificance when compared to what we have given banks.</p><p>I bet there are a lot of bankers breathing sighs of relief that the focus of the public's ire has switched away from them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad as it is , the amount pales into insignificance when compared to what we have given banks.I bet there are a lot of bankers breathing sighs of relief that the focus of the public 's ire has switched away from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad as it is, the amount pales into insignificance when compared to what we have given banks.I bet there are a lot of bankers breathing sighs of relief that the focus of the public's ire has switched away from them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120381</id>
	<title>only one way to keep data secure</title>
	<author>cosanostradamus</author>
	<datestamp>1243501920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>.<br>
Keep it in your head.

There is no such thing as absolute security, therefore there is no such thing as security. If you don't want to share something, don't share it with anybody.<br>
.</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
Keep it in your head .
There is no such thing as absolute security , therefore there is no such thing as security .
If you do n't want to share something , do n't share it with anybody .
.</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
Keep it in your head.
There is no such thing as absolute security, therefore there is no such thing as security.
If you don't want to share something, don't share it with anybody.
.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28122403</id>
	<title>It makes ya proud really</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1243519500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government efficiently collects all the data possible, assembles it together, and leaves it sitting around where outsiders can steal it.  It sure reduces the workload for the criminals!!  Hey, crooks have rights too!!</p><p>Seriously - every one of these big brother data collection efforts is a sign that the politicos have their heads up their arses.  It doesn't do the good guys any good, and it does the criminals no harm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government efficiently collects all the data possible , assembles it together , and leaves it sitting around where outsiders can steal it .
It sure reduces the workload for the criminals ! !
Hey , crooks have rights too !
! Seriously - every one of these big brother data collection efforts is a sign that the politicos have their heads up their arses .
It does n't do the good guys any good , and it does the criminals no harm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government efficiently collects all the data possible, assembles it together, and leaves it sitting around where outsiders can steal it.
It sure reduces the workload for the criminals!!
Hey, crooks have rights too!
!Seriously - every one of these big brother data collection efforts is a sign that the politicos have their heads up their arses.
It doesn't do the good guys any good, and it does the criminals no harm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119533</id>
	<title>I Like this !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243448760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Slashdot is missing a "like" button<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot is missing a " like " button . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot is missing a "like" button ..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121351</id>
	<title>Re:I feel MUCH safer now!</title>
	<author>x2A</author>
	<datestamp>1243511700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The RAF did that?!! Huh... I thought that was the home office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The RAF did that ? ! !
Huh... I thought that was the home office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RAF did that?!!
Huh... I thought that was the home office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119691</id>
	<title>An information society</title>
	<author>jasonmanley</author>
	<datestamp>1243450200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems to me that many organisations would consider payroll, health and other HR info as private and hence restrict access to it on the network, but they wouldn't consider encrypting it with a passowrd - well at least nowhere where I have worked. <br>
And perhaps military institutions consider attack plans, weapons secrets and such as worthy of protection but not an "inteview" that we did "ourselves", "inhouse". <br>
We are learning more and more that this is a connected world - yes even your fridge will have an IP address and be on the net one day mark my words and EVERYTHING will need to be encrypted. Encryption grammar and other security verbiage will be second hand speak for moms and kids<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <br>
"have you packed your lunch" <br>
"Yes mom"<br>
"And MD5 SSL'd your homework via the kerebos LDAP certificate server? You know what happened last time when Mr Jones found your SSH key unencoded on the SELinux partition - I don't want to go through that again"<br>
"Arghh yes mom I have been over this 1000 times with you let it go - my friends and I were scanning photons of the prom dance when James accidentally Bluetoothed a letter from his brother in the army to Amy's communication jewellery which had a compaible 3DES encrytpion algorithm - now will you let it go!? Shees!"<br>
"I'm just saying is all - I have to go and buy some groceries and when I scan my embedded subcutaneous barcode it better not say that I have been SQL Injected because of a bad CRC checksum - I won't be embarrassed like I was the last time"</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to me that many organisations would consider payroll , health and other HR info as private and hence restrict access to it on the network , but they would n't consider encrypting it with a passowrd - well at least nowhere where I have worked .
And perhaps military institutions consider attack plans , weapons secrets and such as worthy of protection but not an " inteview " that we did " ourselves " , " inhouse " .
We are learning more and more that this is a connected world - yes even your fridge will have an IP address and be on the net one day mark my words and EVERYTHING will need to be encrypted .
Encryption grammar and other security verbiage will be second hand speak for moms and kids .. . " have you packed your lunch " " Yes mom " " And MD5 SSL 'd your homework via the kerebos LDAP certificate server ?
You know what happened last time when Mr Jones found your SSH key unencoded on the SELinux partition - I do n't want to go through that again " " Arghh yes mom I have been over this 1000 times with you let it go - my friends and I were scanning photons of the prom dance when James accidentally Bluetoothed a letter from his brother in the army to Amy 's communication jewellery which had a compaible 3DES encrytpion algorithm - now will you let it go ! ?
Shees ! " " I 'm just saying is all - I have to go and buy some groceries and when I scan my embedded subcutaneous barcode it better not say that I have been SQL Injected because of a bad CRC checksum - I wo n't be embarrassed like I was the last time "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to me that many organisations would consider payroll, health and other HR info as private and hence restrict access to it on the network, but they wouldn't consider encrypting it with a passowrd - well at least nowhere where I have worked.
And perhaps military institutions consider attack plans, weapons secrets and such as worthy of protection but not an "inteview" that we did "ourselves", "inhouse".
We are learning more and more that this is a connected world - yes even your fridge will have an IP address and be on the net one day mark my words and EVERYTHING will need to be encrypted.
Encryption grammar and other security verbiage will be second hand speak for moms and kids ... 
"have you packed your lunch" 
"Yes mom"
"And MD5 SSL'd your homework via the kerebos LDAP certificate server?
You know what happened last time when Mr Jones found your SSH key unencoded on the SELinux partition - I don't want to go through that again"
"Arghh yes mom I have been over this 1000 times with you let it go - my friends and I were scanning photons of the prom dance when James accidentally Bluetoothed a letter from his brother in the army to Amy's communication jewellery which had a compaible 3DES encrytpion algorithm - now will you let it go!?
Shees!"
"I'm just saying is all - I have to go and buy some groceries and when I scan my embedded subcutaneous barcode it better not say that I have been SQL Injected because of a bad CRC checksum - I won't be embarrassed like I was the last time"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121437</id>
	<title>Re:please explain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243512780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hooker-banging: Not a crime</p></div><p>
I think in many countries, such as the the United States, this actually is a crime... sigh. Drives up the price.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hooker-banging : Not a crime I think in many countries , such as the the United States , this actually is a crime... sigh. Drives up the price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hooker-banging: Not a crime
I think in many countries, such as the the United States, this actually is a crime... sigh. Drives up the price.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119831</id>
	<title>viral marketing???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243451580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"extra-marital affairs, drug abuse, visits to prostitutes, medical conditions, criminal convictions and debt histories "

- sounds like a viral marketing campaign for the RAF if you ask me - who knew that they had so much fun!

I suppose the word 'raffish' had to come from somewhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" extra-marital affairs , drug abuse , visits to prostitutes , medical conditions , criminal convictions and debt histories " - sounds like a viral marketing campaign for the RAF if you ask me - who knew that they had so much fun !
I suppose the word 'raffish ' had to come from somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"extra-marital affairs, drug abuse, visits to prostitutes, medical conditions, criminal convictions and debt histories "

- sounds like a viral marketing campaign for the RAF if you ask me - who knew that they had so much fun!
I suppose the word 'raffish' had to come from somewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120863</id>
	<title>Re:Since the RAF already knows...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243506780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>spot on. the information provided by the people requesting a security clearance would be used to evaluate whether someone is susceptible to blackmail *assuming someone else knows about that info*. consequently, if one was susceptible to blackmail the clearance should not have been granted in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>spot on .
the information provided by the people requesting a security clearance would be used to evaluate whether someone is susceptible to blackmail * assuming someone else knows about that info * .
consequently , if one was susceptible to blackmail the clearance should not have been granted in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>spot on.
the information provided by the people requesting a security clearance would be used to evaluate whether someone is susceptible to blackmail *assuming someone else knows about that info*.
consequently, if one was susceptible to blackmail the clearance should not have been granted in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120473</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if you do...</title>
	<author>rich\_r</author>
	<datestamp>1243502880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you'll find that the DV (developed vetting) process doesn't expect people to be angels. And that is how it should be. It expects the applicant to be honest with the people who need to know and allows them to build a bigger picture of anyrisk you may pose.

<p>An affair doesn't make an officer inherently disloyal to everyone, that's far to simplistic a view to take.  If there's a pattern of behaviour, then that is a different matter. Same with finances. If your forever dipping into an overdraft or are mortgaged up the wazoo, then you pose a different risk to someone who's had bad credit in the past but is now exemplary.

</p><p>The problem is that this system relies on people being able to hand over this information <i>in confidence</i>. If people realise that this is no longer secure, then that vetting scheme is fundamentally broken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 'll find that the DV ( developed vetting ) process does n't expect people to be angels .
And that is how it should be .
It expects the applicant to be honest with the people who need to know and allows them to build a bigger picture of anyrisk you may pose .
An affair does n't make an officer inherently disloyal to everyone , that 's far to simplistic a view to take .
If there 's a pattern of behaviour , then that is a different matter .
Same with finances .
If your forever dipping into an overdraft or are mortgaged up the wazoo , then you pose a different risk to someone who 's had bad credit in the past but is now exemplary .
The problem is that this system relies on people being able to hand over this information in confidence .
If people realise that this is no longer secure , then that vetting scheme is fundamentally broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you'll find that the DV (developed vetting) process doesn't expect people to be angels.
And that is how it should be.
It expects the applicant to be honest with the people who need to know and allows them to build a bigger picture of anyrisk you may pose.
An affair doesn't make an officer inherently disloyal to everyone, that's far to simplistic a view to take.
If there's a pattern of behaviour, then that is a different matter.
Same with finances.
If your forever dipping into an overdraft or are mortgaged up the wazoo, then you pose a different risk to someone who's had bad credit in the past but is now exemplary.
The problem is that this system relies on people being able to hand over this information in confidence.
If people realise that this is no longer secure, then that vetting scheme is fundamentally broken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120291</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if you do...</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1243543980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Everyone is capable of disloyalty.  <br> <br>
However, there's presumably no correlation between disloyalty to ones spouse and disloyalty to ones nation.  Otherwise someone would have spotted it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Everyone is capable of disloyalty .
However , there 's presumably no correlation between disloyalty to ones spouse and disloyalty to ones nation .
Otherwise someone would have spotted it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everyone is capable of disloyalty.
However, there's presumably no correlation between disloyalty to ones spouse and disloyalty to ones nation.
Otherwise someone would have spotted it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28130441</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if you do...</title>
	<author>couchslug</author>
	<datestamp>1243506060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If yes to any of the above do you want these as officers? Even the extra-marital affairs in most circumstances provide proof that the person is capable of disloyalty."</p><p>Here's the old school Cold War G.I. answer to that one, and I miss those days very much!</p><p>"Pussy doesn't count, country does. Real soldiers are often hard-partying fornicators and the public which they protect should mind its own fucking business. If we fight for our country it shouldn't matter if we spend our free time in orgies with LBFMs and getting shitfaced drunk, or living like warrior monks, or crocheting doilies if that's our fancy. We have all kinds in the military, and so long as we fight well, kindly piss off."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If yes to any of the above do you want these as officers ?
Even the extra-marital affairs in most circumstances provide proof that the person is capable of disloyalty .
" Here 's the old school Cold War G.I .
answer to that one , and I miss those days very much !
" Pussy does n't count , country does .
Real soldiers are often hard-partying fornicators and the public which they protect should mind its own fucking business .
If we fight for our country it should n't matter if we spend our free time in orgies with LBFMs and getting shitfaced drunk , or living like warrior monks , or crocheting doilies if that 's our fancy .
We have all kinds in the military , and so long as we fight well , kindly piss off .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If yes to any of the above do you want these as officers?
Even the extra-marital affairs in most circumstances provide proof that the person is capable of disloyalty.
"Here's the old school Cold War G.I.
answer to that one, and I miss those days very much!
"Pussy doesn't count, country does.
Real soldiers are often hard-partying fornicators and the public which they protect should mind its own fucking business.
If we fight for our country it shouldn't matter if we spend our free time in orgies with LBFMs and getting shitfaced drunk, or living like warrior monks, or crocheting doilies if that's our fancy.
We have all kinds in the military, and so long as we fight well, kindly piss off.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119821</id>
	<title>Re:Tell me...</title>
	<author>MaskedSlacker</author>
	<datestamp>1243451400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh encryption isn't nearly as good as hiding it in an anal cavity.  Even if they find it, they won't want to listen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh encryption is n't nearly as good as hiding it in an anal cavity .
Even if they find it , they wo n't want to listen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh encryption isn't nearly as good as hiding it in an anal cavity.
Even if they find it, they won't want to listen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119419</id>
	<title>Tell me...</title>
	<author>orngjce223</author>
	<datestamp>1243447560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why didn't they just encrypt the disks?  If it's supposed to be sensitive information, store it securely!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why did n't they just encrypt the disks ?
If it 's supposed to be sensitive information , store it securely !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why didn't they just encrypt the disks?
If it's supposed to be sensitive information, store it securely!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619</id>
	<title>Damned if you do...</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1243449660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> the officers disclosed information about extra-marital affairs, drug abuse, visits to prostitutes, medical conditions, criminal convictions and debt histories -- information the military needed to determine their security risk</p></div><p>If yes to any of the above do you want these as officers? Even the extra-marital affairs in most circumstances provide proof that the person is capable of disloyalty.</p><p>The real problem is if they have done any of this and don't admit to it, they're disloyal, liars that shouldn't be given clearance. If they do admit it, they're too stupid to be in a position of authority. The only way time you want to ask these questions is if you know the answer in advance and the answer is "squeaky clean".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the officers disclosed information about extra-marital affairs , drug abuse , visits to prostitutes , medical conditions , criminal convictions and debt histories -- information the military needed to determine their security riskIf yes to any of the above do you want these as officers ?
Even the extra-marital affairs in most circumstances provide proof that the person is capable of disloyalty.The real problem is if they have done any of this and do n't admit to it , they 're disloyal , liars that should n't be given clearance .
If they do admit it , they 're too stupid to be in a position of authority .
The only way time you want to ask these questions is if you know the answer in advance and the answer is " squeaky clean " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the officers disclosed information about extra-marital affairs, drug abuse, visits to prostitutes, medical conditions, criminal convictions and debt histories -- information the military needed to determine their security riskIf yes to any of the above do you want these as officers?
Even the extra-marital affairs in most circumstances provide proof that the person is capable of disloyalty.The real problem is if they have done any of this and don't admit to it, they're disloyal, liars that shouldn't be given clearance.
If they do admit it, they're too stupid to be in a position of authority.
The only way time you want to ask these questions is if you know the answer in advance and the answer is "squeaky clean".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28124009</id>
	<title>Re:please explain</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1243527120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same way that drug using politicians and pundits get a pass even though they themselves claim we should lock drug users up and throw away the key.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same way that drug using politicians and pundits get a pass even though they themselves claim we should lock drug users up and throw away the key .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same way that drug using politicians and pundits get a pass even though they themselves claim we should lock drug users up and throw away the key.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28123787</id>
	<title>Re:please explain</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1243526100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Someone wanna explain to me how drug-using hooker-banging ex-cons are OFFICERS IN THE ROYAL AIR FORCE?</p></div></blockquote><p>Isn't that a requirement for some posts?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone wan na explain to me how drug-using hooker-banging ex-cons are OFFICERS IN THE ROYAL AIR FORCE ? Is n't that a requirement for some posts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone wanna explain to me how drug-using hooker-banging ex-cons are OFFICERS IN THE ROYAL AIR FORCE?Isn't that a requirement for some posts?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28123435</id>
	<title>location, location, location</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243524360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doing it in the UK and doing it outside the UK are completely different things.</p><p>I've been interviewed for clearance. If the government knows your secrets, there's a belief that you are less likely to be blackmailed. There is some logic to that. I know that the government knows things about me that my wife and family do not know. It would be embarrassing if they found out. The level of protection I'd pay to prevent them from finding out<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... well, that's the question, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Doing it in the UK and doing it outside the UK are completely different things.I 've been interviewed for clearance .
If the government knows your secrets , there 's a belief that you are less likely to be blackmailed .
There is some logic to that .
I know that the government knows things about me that my wife and family do not know .
It would be embarrassing if they found out .
The level of protection I 'd pay to prevent them from finding out ... well , that 's the question , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doing it in the UK and doing it outside the UK are completely different things.I've been interviewed for clearance.
If the government knows your secrets, there's a belief that you are less likely to be blackmailed.
There is some logic to that.
I know that the government knows things about me that my wife and family do not know.
It would be embarrassing if they found out.
The level of protection I'd pay to prevent them from finding out ... well, that's the question, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120685</id>
	<title>Re:It's no wonder...</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1243504920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now, now, that's sensible spending. Although it would be cheaper to just hang them and not dump them in the moat, I'm very much for this practice!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , now , that 's sensible spending .
Although it would be cheaper to just hang them and not dump them in the moat , I 'm very much for this practice !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, now, that's sensible spending.
Although it would be cheaper to just hang them and not dump them in the moat, I'm very much for this practice!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120167</id>
	<title>Re:It's no wonder...</title>
	<author>noundi</author>
	<datestamp>1243542480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh my god the UK recorded something and it leaked! Who could have ever imagined this possible outcome!?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh my god the UK recorded something and it leaked !
Who could have ever imagined this possible outcome !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh my god the UK recorded something and it leaked!
Who could have ever imagined this possible outcome!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120325</id>
	<title>SC</title>
	<author>legirons</author>
	<datestamp>1243501260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ah, the good old "tell us everything that would be useful for blackmailing you and we'll write it all down" method that RAF use for doing security-clearance... just trust us with all your embarassing secrets - what could possibly go wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ah , the good old " tell us everything that would be useful for blackmailing you and we 'll write it all down " method that RAF use for doing security-clearance... just trust us with all your embarassing secrets - what could possibly go wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ah, the good old "tell us everything that would be useful for blackmailing you and we'll write it all down" method that RAF use for doing security-clearance... just trust us with all your embarassing secrets - what could possibly go wrong?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120877</id>
	<title>Re:When were we a free society?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1243506840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We gained more and more freedoms over time. Looking back, we certainly enjoy more freedoms today than we did a hundred years ago, at least in Europe. Most of mainland Europe was ruled by autocratic kings and emperors who restricted the exchange of ideas and discussions, criticising the government was often close to high treason. We sure came a long road from this.</p><p>When you look at it with a finer grained system, you'll notice, though, that liberties are in decline, though, and have been since the 1960s, at least in my perspective. It's been especially rough in the last ten or so years, when people all over the world could easily communicate with each other and exchange ideas much more easily and rapidly than ever before. Such things frighten governments and other powerful people. Because it's also never been easier to "spill the beans" and whistleblow.</p><p>Government and industry are quite close to each other these days, and neither wants some of their practices to be smeared all over the planet, for everyone to read. It's never been easier for people to get information into circulation, content is not just music and movies, it's also information and ideas, and they can be spread, multiplied and distributed just as quickly.</p><p>And that's what scares not only the content industry, but everyone who could be threatened by the quick distribution of any kind of information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We gained more and more freedoms over time .
Looking back , we certainly enjoy more freedoms today than we did a hundred years ago , at least in Europe .
Most of mainland Europe was ruled by autocratic kings and emperors who restricted the exchange of ideas and discussions , criticising the government was often close to high treason .
We sure came a long road from this.When you look at it with a finer grained system , you 'll notice , though , that liberties are in decline , though , and have been since the 1960s , at least in my perspective .
It 's been especially rough in the last ten or so years , when people all over the world could easily communicate with each other and exchange ideas much more easily and rapidly than ever before .
Such things frighten governments and other powerful people .
Because it 's also never been easier to " spill the beans " and whistleblow.Government and industry are quite close to each other these days , and neither wants some of their practices to be smeared all over the planet , for everyone to read .
It 's never been easier for people to get information into circulation , content is not just music and movies , it 's also information and ideas , and they can be spread , multiplied and distributed just as quickly.And that 's what scares not only the content industry , but everyone who could be threatened by the quick distribution of any kind of information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We gained more and more freedoms over time.
Looking back, we certainly enjoy more freedoms today than we did a hundred years ago, at least in Europe.
Most of mainland Europe was ruled by autocratic kings and emperors who restricted the exchange of ideas and discussions, criticising the government was often close to high treason.
We sure came a long road from this.When you look at it with a finer grained system, you'll notice, though, that liberties are in decline, though, and have been since the 1960s, at least in my perspective.
It's been especially rough in the last ten or so years, when people all over the world could easily communicate with each other and exchange ideas much more easily and rapidly than ever before.
Such things frighten governments and other powerful people.
Because it's also never been easier to "spill the beans" and whistleblow.Government and industry are quite close to each other these days, and neither wants some of their practices to be smeared all over the planet, for everyone to read.
It's never been easier for people to get information into circulation, content is not just music and movies, it's also information and ideas, and they can be spread, multiplied and distributed just as quickly.And that's what scares not only the content industry, but everyone who could be threatened by the quick distribution of any kind of information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119773</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if you do...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243450860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p> the officers disclosed information about extra-marital affairs, drug abuse, visits to prostitutes, medical conditions, criminal convictions and debt histories -- information the military needed to determine their security risk</p></div><p>If yes to any of the above do you want these as officers? Even the extra-marital affairs in most circumstances provide proof that the person is capable of disloyalty.</p><p>The real problem is if they have done any of this and don't admit to it, they're disloyal, liars that shouldn't be given clearance. If they do admit it, they're too stupid to be in a position of authority. The only way time you want to ask these questions is if you know the answer in advance and the answer is "squeaky clean".</p></div><p>Generally these questions are not asked with the sole purpose of ascertaining a candidates moral or ethical standards, but more to determine their risk of being compromised by an adversary (read - blackmailed, etc).</p><p>For example, someone who has had marital affairs or has high debt have an avenue that an adversary can take to coerce the candidate to divulge sensitive information.</p><p>So really, I don't think it comes down to a question of loyalty.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the officers disclosed information about extra-marital affairs , drug abuse , visits to prostitutes , medical conditions , criminal convictions and debt histories -- information the military needed to determine their security riskIf yes to any of the above do you want these as officers ?
Even the extra-marital affairs in most circumstances provide proof that the person is capable of disloyalty.The real problem is if they have done any of this and do n't admit to it , they 're disloyal , liars that should n't be given clearance .
If they do admit it , they 're too stupid to be in a position of authority .
The only way time you want to ask these questions is if you know the answer in advance and the answer is " squeaky clean " .Generally these questions are not asked with the sole purpose of ascertaining a candidates moral or ethical standards , but more to determine their risk of being compromised by an adversary ( read - blackmailed , etc ) .For example , someone who has had marital affairs or has high debt have an avenue that an adversary can take to coerce the candidate to divulge sensitive information.So really , I do n't think it comes down to a question of loyalty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the officers disclosed information about extra-marital affairs, drug abuse, visits to prostitutes, medical conditions, criminal convictions and debt histories -- information the military needed to determine their security riskIf yes to any of the above do you want these as officers?
Even the extra-marital affairs in most circumstances provide proof that the person is capable of disloyalty.The real problem is if they have done any of this and don't admit to it, they're disloyal, liars that shouldn't be given clearance.
If they do admit it, they're too stupid to be in a position of authority.
The only way time you want to ask these questions is if you know the answer in advance and the answer is "squeaky clean".Generally these questions are not asked with the sole purpose of ascertaining a candidates moral or ethical standards, but more to determine their risk of being compromised by an adversary (read - blackmailed, etc).For example, someone who has had marital affairs or has high debt have an avenue that an adversary can take to coerce the candidate to divulge sensitive information.So really, I don't think it comes down to a question of loyalty.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28123221</id>
	<title>because it's only sensitive *to you*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243523340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the information you provide to a government to convince it that you are sufficiently trustworthy to handle *their* secrets is not one of their official secrets (i.e. it's "unclassified") and they won't let you assign a security classification to *your* secrets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the information you provide to a government to convince it that you are sufficiently trustworthy to handle * their * secrets is not one of their official secrets ( i.e .
it 's " unclassified " ) and they wo n't let you assign a security classification to * your * secrets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the information you provide to a government to convince it that you are sufficiently trustworthy to handle *their* secrets is not one of their official secrets (i.e.
it's "unclassified") and they won't let you assign a security classification to *your* secrets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120363</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if you do...</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1243501680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If yes to any of the above do you want these as officers?</p></div><p>Yes.</p><p>In fact, I would be very suspicious of anyone who claims to have a spot-perfect past with no youthful sins, stupid mistakes or questionable acts <b>at all</b>.</p><p>Now I might have my doubts about someone who has both an affair and goes to prostitutes, while being on drugs all the time thanks to all his contacts from his multiple convictions.</p><p>Interestingly, all the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. crowd worries about is the amoral parts. For a blackmailing, a medical condition might be a whole lot more dangerous, depending on what it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If yes to any of the above do you want these as officers ? Yes.In fact , I would be very suspicious of anyone who claims to have a spot-perfect past with no youthful sins , stupid mistakes or questionable acts at all.Now I might have my doubts about someone who has both an affair and goes to prostitutes , while being on drugs all the time thanks to all his contacts from his multiple convictions.Interestingly , all the / .
crowd worries about is the amoral parts .
For a blackmailing , a medical condition might be a whole lot more dangerous , depending on what it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If yes to any of the above do you want these as officers?Yes.In fact, I would be very suspicious of anyone who claims to have a spot-perfect past with no youthful sins, stupid mistakes or questionable acts at all.Now I might have my doubts about someone who has both an affair and goes to prostitutes, while being on drugs all the time thanks to all his contacts from his multiple convictions.Interestingly, all the /.
crowd worries about is the amoral parts.
For a blackmailing, a medical condition might be a whole lot more dangerous, depending on what it is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120545</id>
	<title>Re:please explain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243503720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If we are limiting this to hookers, please have a look at the historical conduct of every armed forces of every country in the world throughout the entire history of mankind (not excluding the Vietnam War and Serbia).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we are limiting this to hookers , please have a look at the historical conduct of every armed forces of every country in the world throughout the entire history of mankind ( not excluding the Vietnam War and Serbia ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we are limiting this to hookers, please have a look at the historical conduct of every armed forces of every country in the world throughout the entire history of mankind (not excluding the Vietnam War and Serbia).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121881</id>
	<title>Re:please explain</title>
	<author>belthize</author>
	<datestamp>1243516560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>  That was my first thought too but then I started thinking about it.   I've been interviewed numerous times regarding ex-employees getting civilian security clearances.   In general I suspect you're right.  A civilian whose background opened them up to black mail is *exactly* the kind of person they're trying to screen out.   It may be this kind of screening process is just a formality where officers in the RAF are concerned, i.e. they're assumed to be trustworthy otherwise they couldn't be officers.   It's a built in blind spot.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Granted my experience involved civilians gaining access to nuclear labs in the US, maybe the RAF is just stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was my first thought too but then I started thinking about it .
I 've been interviewed numerous times regarding ex-employees getting civilian security clearances .
In general I suspect you 're right .
A civilian whose background opened them up to black mail is * exactly * the kind of person they 're trying to screen out .
It may be this kind of screening process is just a formality where officers in the RAF are concerned , i.e .
they 're assumed to be trustworthy otherwise they could n't be officers .
It 's a built in blind spot .
    Granted my experience involved civilians gaining access to nuclear labs in the US , maybe the RAF is just stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  That was my first thought too but then I started thinking about it.
I've been interviewed numerous times regarding ex-employees getting civilian security clearances.
In general I suspect you're right.
A civilian whose background opened them up to black mail is *exactly* the kind of person they're trying to screen out.
It may be this kind of screening process is just a formality where officers in the RAF are concerned, i.e.
they're assumed to be trustworthy otherwise they couldn't be officers.
It's a built in blind spot.
    Granted my experience involved civilians gaining access to nuclear labs in the US, maybe the RAF is just stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120171</id>
	<title>Open Government</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1243542540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess the British government is now following the principle of "information wants to be free".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the British government is now following the principle of " information wants to be free " .
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the British government is now following the principle of "information wants to be free".
:P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28122829</id>
	<title>Thought Flow</title>
	<author>BigBlueOx</author>
	<datestamp>1243521600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><em>the officers disclosed information about extra-marital affairs, drug abuse, visits to prostitutes, medical conditions, criminal convictions and debt histories</em> <br>
<br>
First: So the RAF works just like Scientology?<br>
<br>
Second: Hey! If Scientology can keep all *their* blackmail info secure, why can't the RAF?<br>
<br>
Third: Maybe the RAF should hire Scientologists to secure their data<br>
<br>
Fourth: Kate Beckinsale in Underworld. <br>
<br>
Fifth: REDACTED CLASSIFIED</htmltext>
<tokenext>the officers disclosed information about extra-marital affairs , drug abuse , visits to prostitutes , medical conditions , criminal convictions and debt histories First : So the RAF works just like Scientology ?
Second : Hey !
If Scientology can keep all * their * blackmail info secure , why ca n't the RAF ?
Third : Maybe the RAF should hire Scientologists to secure their data Fourth : Kate Beckinsale in Underworld .
Fifth : REDACTED CLASSIFIED</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the officers disclosed information about extra-marital affairs, drug abuse, visits to prostitutes, medical conditions, criminal convictions and debt histories 

First: So the RAF works just like Scientology?
Second: Hey!
If Scientology can keep all *their* blackmail info secure, why can't the RAF?
Third: Maybe the RAF should hire Scientologists to secure their data

Fourth: Kate Beckinsale in Underworld.
Fifth: REDACTED CLASSIFIED</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28122225</id>
	<title>Re:It's no wonder...</title>
	<author>drachenstern</author>
	<datestamp>1243518600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eh, why not leach off an ac's post-height...</p><p>Did anyone else read the headline and have to pause for a moment to figure out if blackmail was some sort of new email threat?</p><p>My mind went {blackmail-&gt;darkmail-&gt;email-&gt;wtf!?-&gt;/facepalm}</p><p>But seriously, blackmail and darkmail are great names for spam....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eh , why not leach off an ac 's post-height...Did anyone else read the headline and have to pause for a moment to figure out if blackmail was some sort of new email threat ? My mind went { blackmail- &gt; darkmail- &gt; email- &gt; wtf !
? - &gt; /facepalm } But seriously , blackmail and darkmail are great names for spam... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eh, why not leach off an ac's post-height...Did anyone else read the headline and have to pause for a moment to figure out if blackmail was some sort of new email threat?My mind went {blackmail-&gt;darkmail-&gt;email-&gt;wtf!
?-&gt;/facepalm}But seriously, blackmail and darkmail are great names for spam....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120207</id>
	<title>Re:please explain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243543020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are known as the Brylcreem Boys for a reason, you know!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are known as the Brylcreem Boys for a reason , you know !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are known as the Brylcreem Boys for a reason, you know!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28125343</id>
	<title>Re:Disappeared == data breach?</title>
	<author>AJWM</author>
	<datestamp>1243532640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How did we go from "three unencrypted hard drives that disappeared" to it being a "data breach"?</i></p><p>Because security isn't about probabilities, it's about capabilities.   If you don't <i>know</i> where the drives went, you have to assume worst case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How did we go from " three unencrypted hard drives that disappeared " to it being a " data breach " ? Because security is n't about probabilities , it 's about capabilities .
If you do n't know where the drives went , you have to assume worst case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did we go from "three unencrypted hard drives that disappeared" to it being a "data breach"?Because security isn't about probabilities, it's about capabilities.
If you don't know where the drives went, you have to assume worst case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119923</id>
	<title>Looks like goverment works the same across the oce</title>
	<author>klawre1221</author>
	<datestamp>1243452840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good to see the Brits have as bad a security as we do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good to see the Brits have as bad a security as we do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good to see the Brits have as bad a security as we do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120265</id>
	<title>You want to read up about our nobility</title>
	<author>fantomas</author>
	<datestamp>1243543740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want to read some history books (and sometimes even the newspapers) about what our nobility and occasionally royalty have got up to over the years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want to read some history books ( and sometimes even the newspapers ) about what our nobility and occasionally royalty have got up to over the years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want to read some history books (and sometimes even the newspapers) about what our nobility and occasionally royalty have got up to over the years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119759</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if you do...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243450800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they rule out every officer who's ever cheated on their wife, screwed a hooker or gotten stoned... there'd be no candidates left<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P  Hell, two out of those three are pretty much standard issue for the military.</p><p>Plus, remember that most of these guys got to where they were on qualifications (save a few from nepotism).  Can this person lead soldiers (well, pilots, but the point stands), can they give orders, obey orders, and maintain their calm under adverse conditions?  If they can, they're qualified (and sorely needed).  If they also happen to be an unfaithful indebted crazy coke-headed john, oh well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they rule out every officer who 's ever cheated on their wife , screwed a hooker or gotten stoned... there 'd be no candidates left : -P Hell , two out of those three are pretty much standard issue for the military.Plus , remember that most of these guys got to where they were on qualifications ( save a few from nepotism ) .
Can this person lead soldiers ( well , pilots , but the point stands ) , can they give orders , obey orders , and maintain their calm under adverse conditions ?
If they can , they 're qualified ( and sorely needed ) .
If they also happen to be an unfaithful indebted crazy coke-headed john , oh well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they rule out every officer who's ever cheated on their wife, screwed a hooker or gotten stoned... there'd be no candidates left :-P  Hell, two out of those three are pretty much standard issue for the military.Plus, remember that most of these guys got to where they were on qualifications (save a few from nepotism).
Can this person lead soldiers (well, pilots, but the point stands), can they give orders, obey orders, and maintain their calm under adverse conditions?
If they can, they're qualified (and sorely needed).
If they also happen to be an unfaithful indebted crazy coke-headed john, oh well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120875</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if you do...</title>
	<author>gedhrel</author>
	<datestamp>1243506840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point of this is that the security vetting process is intended to air anything that you might be embarrassed about with the vetters (and by extension the state machinery). If they already know, (and you'd be surprised how much they \_do\_ know by the time the interviews actually happen) and you know they know, the idea is that the information can't be used to blackmail you. For most low-level security clearances the only way you fail is by omitting stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of this is that the security vetting process is intended to air anything that you might be embarrassed about with the vetters ( and by extension the state machinery ) .
If they already know , ( and you 'd be surprised how much they \ _do \ _ know by the time the interviews actually happen ) and you know they know , the idea is that the information ca n't be used to blackmail you .
For most low-level security clearances the only way you fail is by omitting stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of this is that the security vetting process is intended to air anything that you might be embarrassed about with the vetters (and by extension the state machinery).
If they already know, (and you'd be surprised how much they \_do\_ know by the time the interviews actually happen) and you know they know, the idea is that the information can't be used to blackmail you.
For most low-level security clearances the only way you fail is by omitting stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119995</id>
	<title>Re:please explain</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1243454100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a limit.  I.e., if you're the sort of person best described as a "drug-using hooker-banging ex-con" and that's it, you're not getting in.  But if you're basically an upstanding citizen who in your younger days smoked a joint or two, visited a prostitute once or twice, or got caught shoplifting some low-value item, it would be stupid for the service to reject you on that basis alone.  (Actually, as far as the prostitution bit goes, fighter jocks and hookers go together like ducks and water.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a limit .
I.e. , if you 're the sort of person best described as a " drug-using hooker-banging ex-con " and that 's it , you 're not getting in .
But if you 're basically an upstanding citizen who in your younger days smoked a joint or two , visited a prostitute once or twice , or got caught shoplifting some low-value item , it would be stupid for the service to reject you on that basis alone .
( Actually , as far as the prostitution bit goes , fighter jocks and hookers go together like ducks and water .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a limit.
I.e., if you're the sort of person best described as a "drug-using hooker-banging ex-con" and that's it, you're not getting in.
But if you're basically an upstanding citizen who in your younger days smoked a joint or two, visited a prostitute once or twice, or got caught shoplifting some low-value item, it would be stupid for the service to reject you on that basis alone.
(Actually, as far as the prostitution bit goes, fighter jocks and hookers go together like ducks and water.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120045</id>
	<title>Disappeared == data breach?</title>
	<author>daBass</author>
	<datestamp>1243541100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How did we go from "three unencrypted hard drives that disappeared" to it being a "data breach"?</p><p>Yes, they should have been encrypted and yes, they should not have disappeared. For all we know some idiot stole them reformatted them and now hold their pr0n collection at home. Or the wrong ones were picked up for destruction and they have actually been securely destroyed.</p><p>Really, the media and everyone here is getting their panties all in a twist and coming up with fantastical hypothetical situation when the most likely scenario is nothing bad will come from this as it rarely does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How did we go from " three unencrypted hard drives that disappeared " to it being a " data breach " ? Yes , they should have been encrypted and yes , they should not have disappeared .
For all we know some idiot stole them reformatted them and now hold their pr0n collection at home .
Or the wrong ones were picked up for destruction and they have actually been securely destroyed.Really , the media and everyone here is getting their panties all in a twist and coming up with fantastical hypothetical situation when the most likely scenario is nothing bad will come from this as it rarely does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did we go from "three unencrypted hard drives that disappeared" to it being a "data breach"?Yes, they should have been encrypted and yes, they should not have disappeared.
For all we know some idiot stole them reformatted them and now hold their pr0n collection at home.
Or the wrong ones were picked up for destruction and they have actually been securely destroyed.Really, the media and everyone here is getting their panties all in a twist and coming up with fantastical hypothetical situation when the most likely scenario is nothing bad will come from this as it rarely does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120117</id>
	<title>Old story?</title>
	<author>jonnyt886</author>
	<datestamp>1243542000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This was in BBC news at the beginning of the week! Come on, Slashdot!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was in BBC news at the beginning of the week !
Come on , Slashdot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was in BBC news at the beginning of the week!
Come on, Slashdot!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119597</id>
	<title>RAF stands for...</title>
	<author>grepya</author>
	<datestamp>1243449420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Royal Air F***s</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Royal Air F * * * s</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Royal Air F***s</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119551</id>
	<title>Mr. Bean, Ministry of Defence Internet Security</title>
	<author>leftie</author>
	<datestamp>1243448880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Ummm..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ummm... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ummm..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121699</id>
	<title>Re:please explain</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1243515540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know, but that sounds like a fairly apt description of most Royalty itself.  Good enough for the King and all that...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know , but that sounds like a fairly apt description of most Royalty itself .
Good enough for the King and all that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know, but that sounds like a fairly apt description of most Royalty itself.
Good enough for the King and all that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120375</id>
	<title>gnAaa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243501860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">The 8ain..we can bfe</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The 8ain..we can bfe [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 8ain..we can bfe [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120047</id>
	<title>Re:please explain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243541220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Someone wanna explain to me how drug-using hooker-banging ex-cons are OFFICERS IN THE <b>ROYAL</b> AIR FORCE?</p></div><p>emphasis added...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone wan na explain to me how drug-using hooker-banging ex-cons are OFFICERS IN THE ROYAL AIR FORCE ? emphasis added.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone wanna explain to me how drug-using hooker-banging ex-cons are OFFICERS IN THE ROYAL AIR FORCE?emphasis added...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120407</id>
	<title>late news...?</title>
	<author>thredder</author>
	<datestamp>1243502280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So losing sensitive data "last year" is only being reported now as a problem!?</p><p>I hope that between losing the material and reporting it (several months later), some action has already been taken to minimise the potential for blackmail.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...or were they waiting a certain length of time to see if it turned up somewhere or was posted back to them before panicking.</p><p>(I would say that I hope action has already been taken to prevent this from happening again, but I'm not that naive)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So losing sensitive data " last year " is only being reported now as a problem !
? I hope that between losing the material and reporting it ( several months later ) , some action has already been taken to minimise the potential for blackmail .
...or were they waiting a certain length of time to see if it turned up somewhere or was posted back to them before panicking .
( I would say that I hope action has already been taken to prevent this from happening again , but I 'm not that naive )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So losing sensitive data "last year" is only being reported now as a problem!
?I hope that between losing the material and reporting it (several months later), some action has already been taken to minimise the potential for blackmail.
...or were they waiting a certain length of time to see if it turned up somewhere or was posted back to them before panicking.
(I would say that I hope action has already been taken to prevent this from happening again, but I'm not that naive)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119417</id>
	<title>Mind boggling</title>
	<author>AJWM</author>
	<datestamp>1243447500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I didn't know that, alas, such mind boggling stupidity was all too possible, I might think that "losing" these had to be some kind of set-up, and the recordings fake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I did n't know that , alas , such mind boggling stupidity was all too possible , I might think that " losing " these had to be some kind of set-up , and the recordings fake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I didn't know that, alas, such mind boggling stupidity was all too possible, I might think that "losing" these had to be some kind of set-up, and the recordings fake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829</id>
	<title>please explain</title>
	<author>Swampash</author>
	<datestamp>1243451580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone wanna explain to me how drug-using hooker-banging ex-cons are OFFICERS IN THE ROYAL AIR FORCE?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone wan na explain to me how drug-using hooker-banging ex-cons are OFFICERS IN THE ROYAL AIR FORCE ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone wanna explain to me how drug-using hooker-banging ex-cons are OFFICERS IN THE ROYAL AIR FORCE?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28122087</id>
	<title>Re:please explain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243517820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Someone wanna explain to me how drug-using hooker-banging ex-cons are OFFICERS IN THE ROYAL AIR FORCE?</p></div><p>An officer isn't necessarily a gentleman...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone wan na explain to me how drug-using hooker-banging ex-cons are OFFICERS IN THE ROYAL AIR FORCE ? An officer is n't necessarily a gentleman.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone wanna explain to me how drug-using hooker-banging ex-cons are OFFICERS IN THE ROYAL AIR FORCE?An officer isn't necessarily a gentleman...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119499</id>
	<title>Re:Since the RAF already knows...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243448460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>um, just because your boss knows something embarrassing, it doesn't mean your wife, family, whole world needs to know.
<br>
<br>
On the other hand, if your boss has special forces, it could work to your advantage...
<br>
<br>
Idiot: "Sir, you know that midget fetish I spoke about during the security interview?"
<br>
<br>
Chief Idiot: "Yes? I really quite enjoyed that bit. Quite naughty!"
<br>
<br>
Idiot: "Well, there are some chaps who think they can hold it over me, for a few quid, per week... not tell the missus, and all."
<br>
<br>
Chief Idiot: "Oh, well, that's not right, I'll send some SAS over there ASAP and they won't be a problem anymore."</htmltext>
<tokenext>um , just because your boss knows something embarrassing , it does n't mean your wife , family , whole world needs to know .
On the other hand , if your boss has special forces , it could work to your advantage.. . Idiot : " Sir , you know that midget fetish I spoke about during the security interview ?
" Chief Idiot : " Yes ?
I really quite enjoyed that bit .
Quite naughty !
" Idiot : " Well , there are some chaps who think they can hold it over me , for a few quid , per week... not tell the missus , and all .
" Chief Idiot : " Oh , well , that 's not right , I 'll send some SAS over there ASAP and they wo n't be a problem anymore .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>um, just because your boss knows something embarrassing, it doesn't mean your wife, family, whole world needs to know.
On the other hand, if your boss has special forces, it could work to your advantage...


Idiot: "Sir, you know that midget fetish I spoke about during the security interview?
"


Chief Idiot: "Yes?
I really quite enjoyed that bit.
Quite naughty!
"


Idiot: "Well, there are some chaps who think they can hold it over me, for a few quid, per week... not tell the missus, and all.
"


Chief Idiot: "Oh, well, that's not right, I'll send some SAS over there ASAP and they won't be a problem anymore.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119663</id>
	<title>Yes, let's titillate the public with this</title>
	<author>gringofrijolero</author>
	<datestamp>1243450020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they won't notice the drugs and hookers passing through the Lords. Which I'm sure is of much higher quality. And a far bigger turn on to read about. Oooooo, the excitement already has me "standing for the Queen".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they wo n't notice the drugs and hookers passing through the Lords .
Which I 'm sure is of much higher quality .
And a far bigger turn on to read about .
Oooooo , the excitement already has me " standing for the Queen " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they won't notice the drugs and hookers passing through the Lords.
Which I'm sure is of much higher quality.
And a far bigger turn on to read about.
Oooooo, the excitement already has me "standing for the Queen".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28122441</id>
	<title>The real question is...</title>
	<author>Darth\_brooks</author>
	<datestamp>1243519740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real question is, do any of these recordings detail the rampant cannibalism that continues to plague the RAF?</p><p>Yours etc.<br>Captain B.J. Smethwick in a white wine sauce with shallots, mushrooms and garlic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real question is , do any of these recordings detail the rampant cannibalism that continues to plague the RAF ? Yours etc.Captain B.J .
Smethwick in a white wine sauce with shallots , mushrooms and garlic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real question is, do any of these recordings detail the rampant cannibalism that continues to plague the RAF?Yours etc.Captain B.J.
Smethwick in a white wine sauce with shallots, mushrooms and garlic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119407</id>
	<title>It's no wonder...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243447440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>All the money that their government has goes to buying moats and other fun things for the MPs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All the money that their government has goes to buying moats and other fun things for the MPs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the money that their government has goes to buying moats and other fun things for the MPs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120345</id>
	<title>Re:Since the RAF already knows...</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1243501500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, while funny in the way parent wrote it, that's the whole point. If the RAF already knows what people could try to blackmail you with, it gives both you and them additional options. For them, it means they can decide that you may better not be trusted with some information. For you it means going to them and putting the cards on the table when you <b>are</b> being blackmailed is easier, since they already know the dirt anyways. Then you can work with them to find a way out, like providing the blackmailers with false information, or simply taking care of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , while funny in the way parent wrote it , that 's the whole point .
If the RAF already knows what people could try to blackmail you with , it gives both you and them additional options .
For them , it means they can decide that you may better not be trusted with some information .
For you it means going to them and putting the cards on the table when you are being blackmailed is easier , since they already know the dirt anyways .
Then you can work with them to find a way out , like providing the blackmailers with false information , or simply taking care of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, while funny in the way parent wrote it, that's the whole point.
If the RAF already knows what people could try to blackmail you with, it gives both you and them additional options.
For them, it means they can decide that you may better not be trusted with some information.
For you it means going to them and putting the cards on the table when you are being blackmailed is easier, since they already know the dirt anyways.
Then you can work with them to find a way out, like providing the blackmailers with false information, or simply taking care of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119499</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121489</id>
	<title>Re:please explain</title>
	<author>x2A</author>
	<datestamp>1243513500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By being good at their job presumably.</p><p>It's not like they're gonna be using harriers to pick up prostitutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By being good at their job presumably.It 's not like they 're gon na be using harriers to pick up prostitutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By being good at their job presumably.It's not like they're gonna be using harriers to pick up prostitutes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120067</id>
	<title>Re:please explain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243541340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do so many folks expect the people we hire for our dirtiest jobs (like thermo-nuclear incineration of entire nations) to be do-no-harm nice guys?</p><p>At best you are going to get people who act like the majority of the society they represent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do so many folks expect the people we hire for our dirtiest jobs ( like thermo-nuclear incineration of entire nations ) to be do-no-harm nice guys ? At best you are going to get people who act like the majority of the society they represent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do so many folks expect the people we hire for our dirtiest jobs (like thermo-nuclear incineration of entire nations) to be do-no-harm nice guys?At best you are going to get people who act like the majority of the society they represent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28123329</id>
	<title>Re:Disappeared == data breach?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243523940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... and they have actually been securely destroyed.</p></div><p>I work at a HDD manufacturer, and we did a study a while ago. We were given some HDDs that were returned on warrenty, they had been 'securely destroyed', that is they had been degaussed by a professional data-whiping company. We found that about 25\% of them had at least some readable files remaining on them. Thus even if they had been 'securely destroyed' there might still be reason to worry.</p><p>This is one of the reasons we decided to go for hardware encryption onboard the HDD itself. Once the power is turned off, it is unusable unless you know the password (or can guess the encryption key, but that is likely even harder). Oh, and there is a way to do a cryptographic erase that simply changes the encryption key thus removing the password entrypoint (guessing the key after opening the drive and reading it with your own hardware might still be possible, if you had your own cleanroom and a supercomputer to apply to hacking the encoding).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... and they have actually been securely destroyed.I work at a HDD manufacturer , and we did a study a while ago .
We were given some HDDs that were returned on warrenty , they had been 'securely destroyed ' , that is they had been degaussed by a professional data-whiping company .
We found that about 25 \ % of them had at least some readable files remaining on them .
Thus even if they had been 'securely destroyed ' there might still be reason to worry.This is one of the reasons we decided to go for hardware encryption onboard the HDD itself .
Once the power is turned off , it is unusable unless you know the password ( or can guess the encryption key , but that is likely even harder ) .
Oh , and there is a way to do a cryptographic erase that simply changes the encryption key thus removing the password entrypoint ( guessing the key after opening the drive and reading it with your own hardware might still be possible , if you had your own cleanroom and a supercomputer to apply to hacking the encoding ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and they have actually been securely destroyed.I work at a HDD manufacturer, and we did a study a while ago.
We were given some HDDs that were returned on warrenty, they had been 'securely destroyed', that is they had been degaussed by a professional data-whiping company.
We found that about 25\% of them had at least some readable files remaining on them.
Thus even if they had been 'securely destroyed' there might still be reason to worry.This is one of the reasons we decided to go for hardware encryption onboard the HDD itself.
Once the power is turned off, it is unusable unless you know the password (or can guess the encryption key, but that is likely even harder).
Oh, and there is a way to do a cryptographic erase that simply changes the encryption key thus removing the password entrypoint (guessing the key after opening the drive and reading it with your own hardware might still be possible, if you had your own cleanroom and a supercomputer to apply to hacking the encoding).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120593</id>
	<title>Re:please explain</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1243504080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can you fix the plane first time?<br>
Or are you a good boy or girl who sealed a tool in another jet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. again?<br>
Jet work is expensive.  You have 2 options, hire contractors - like the USA does at 3X the pay grade.<br>As every other person in uniform escapes the pain on base as soon as they can.<br>
Or you treat your next generation like members of the human race and they stay.<br>
Suicide is another 'problem', all that wasted tax payers money.<br>
Best to be open, keep it all nice and in house.  Or you bring in cleared contractors.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you fix the plane first time ?
Or are you a good boy or girl who sealed a tool in another jet .. again ? Jet work is expensive .
You have 2 options , hire contractors - like the USA does at 3X the pay grade.As every other person in uniform escapes the pain on base as soon as they can .
Or you treat your next generation like members of the human race and they stay .
Suicide is another 'problem ' , all that wasted tax payers money .
Best to be open , keep it all nice and in house .
Or you bring in cleared contractors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you fix the plane first time?
Or are you a good boy or girl who sealed a tool in another jet .. again?
Jet work is expensive.
You have 2 options, hire contractors - like the USA does at 3X the pay grade.As every other person in uniform escapes the pain on base as soon as they can.
Or you treat your next generation like members of the human race and they stay.
Suicide is another 'problem', all that wasted tax payers money.
Best to be open, keep it all nice and in house.
Or you bring in cleared contractors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119891</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if you do...</title>
	<author>h4rm0ny</author>
	<datestamp>1243452120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
A lot of the people hiring will have indulged in all these behaviours and wont condemn someone for them. Rather it will make them part of the club. Use of prostitutes in the armed forces? Goodness - that could never happen!  With some groups, the person who never touched drugs, doesn't pick up prostitutes is the one that makes everyone else
uncomfortable. In Bosnia, the private military firm DynCorp was actually buying girls as forced prostitutes (and I do mean girls - some were fifteen. And this were US soldiers). Related, its one of the reasons women face a 'glass ceiling' in some areas, such as the upper military, high finance, etc. It's because the wealthy / powerful men who are accustomed to doing as they please feel uncomfortable saying: "hey lets all do some lines and pick up some hookers" when someone from "the other side" is amongst them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of the people hiring will have indulged in all these behaviours and wont condemn someone for them .
Rather it will make them part of the club .
Use of prostitutes in the armed forces ?
Goodness - that could never happen !
With some groups , the person who never touched drugs , does n't pick up prostitutes is the one that makes everyone else uncomfortable .
In Bosnia , the private military firm DynCorp was actually buying girls as forced prostitutes ( and I do mean girls - some were fifteen .
And this were US soldiers ) .
Related , its one of the reasons women face a 'glass ceiling ' in some areas , such as the upper military , high finance , etc .
It 's because the wealthy / powerful men who are accustomed to doing as they please feel uncomfortable saying : " hey lets all do some lines and pick up some hookers " when someone from " the other side " is amongst them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
A lot of the people hiring will have indulged in all these behaviours and wont condemn someone for them.
Rather it will make them part of the club.
Use of prostitutes in the armed forces?
Goodness - that could never happen!
With some groups, the person who never touched drugs, doesn't pick up prostitutes is the one that makes everyone else
uncomfortable.
In Bosnia, the private military firm DynCorp was actually buying girls as forced prostitutes (and I do mean girls - some were fifteen.
And this were US soldiers).
Related, its one of the reasons women face a 'glass ceiling' in some areas, such as the upper military, high finance, etc.
It's because the wealthy / powerful men who are accustomed to doing as they please feel uncomfortable saying: "hey lets all do some lines and pick up some hookers" when someone from "the other side" is amongst them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120311</id>
	<title>Re:please explain</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1243544280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're humans just like the rest of us?</p><p>The list mentioned in the summary is probably from the topics/questions asked about. That doesn't mean that everyone of the subjects - or even just one of them - has an affirmative answer in <b>all</b> of them. I suspect the truth is rather boring, with one officer having done some drugs in his youth, a different one having an affair, a third one preferring professionals, several with completely clean sheets, someone with a conviction for some minor (but criminal) stuff done before he joined the force, etc.</p><p>If you have to lay open your <b>entire</b> history - and background checks work like that - then it's very unlikely that you would find enough people with perfectly white shirts in the entire commonwealth to staff even one airforce base.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're humans just like the rest of us ? The list mentioned in the summary is probably from the topics/questions asked about .
That does n't mean that everyone of the subjects - or even just one of them - has an affirmative answer in all of them .
I suspect the truth is rather boring , with one officer having done some drugs in his youth , a different one having an affair , a third one preferring professionals , several with completely clean sheets , someone with a conviction for some minor ( but criminal ) stuff done before he joined the force , etc.If you have to lay open your entire history - and background checks work like that - then it 's very unlikely that you would find enough people with perfectly white shirts in the entire commonwealth to staff even one airforce base .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're humans just like the rest of us?The list mentioned in the summary is probably from the topics/questions asked about.
That doesn't mean that everyone of the subjects - or even just one of them - has an affirmative answer in all of them.
I suspect the truth is rather boring, with one officer having done some drugs in his youth, a different one having an affair, a third one preferring professionals, several with completely clean sheets, someone with a conviction for some minor (but criminal) stuff done before he joined the force, etc.If you have to lay open your entire history - and background checks work like that - then it's very unlikely that you would find enough people with perfectly white shirts in the entire commonwealth to staff even one airforce base.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120289</id>
	<title>consequence</title>
	<author>anonieuweling</author>
	<datestamp>1243543980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>All Royal Air Force staff involved can thus forget about any clearance at all since they can be blackmailed.<br>
I guess the military should compensate said personnel for loss of career possibilities and of course improve their data protection/storage/etc policies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All Royal Air Force staff involved can thus forget about any clearance at all since they can be blackmailed .
I guess the military should compensate said personnel for loss of career possibilities and of course improve their data protection/storage/etc policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All Royal Air Force staff involved can thus forget about any clearance at all since they can be blackmailed.
I guess the military should compensate said personnel for loss of career possibilities and of course improve their data protection/storage/etc policies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28132737</id>
	<title>No one has talked about the purpose...</title>
	<author>tlambert</author>
	<datestamp>1243517340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one has talked about the purpose of these interviews.</p><p>It's unlikely any of the disclosed information could be usable for blackmail in any way.</p><p>The purpose of a government agency obtaining all possible blackmail information about you is to prevent you from being blackmailed with the information under threat of disclosure of said information to your employer (the government agency).  The safest answer (for the agency) to such an external threat is the target of the blackmail being able to say "they already know".</p><p>Most likely, the information disclosed will not in fact be usable for blackmail, as the article suggests, if the information was considered to have been mitigated sufficiently for the clearance to have been granted.  If the information was not mitigated, then there would not have been a clearance issues; in that case, it might be a problem for the officer in question, but it won't impact their ability to do the job for which they were cleared to do.</p><p>For example, if an officer engaged in an extramarital affair, but had disclosed that information to his wife, then the information could not be used as blackmail fodder in an attempt to coerce the officer to not perform their assigned duty.  If the information was not disclosed to his wife, then the officer would probably have been denied a clearance, and could face restrictions on their military duty, up to and including discharge from the military, to prevent that information being used to cause the officer to act as the attacker/enemy wanted during a conflict situation.</p><p>It might be a problem unrelated to any national security concerns for the officer who disclosed unmitigated information, but it's actually unlikely that the information would not be disclosed unless it was apriori mitigated (unless the officer was "plain stupid").</p><p>The US criteria for denial and mitigation for reasons of denial is:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.smdc.army.mil/adr/adjguid/adjguidF.htm" title="army.mil">http://www.smdc.army.mil/adr/adjguid/adjguidF.htm</a> [army.mil]</p><p>and I can't believe that the RAF criteria would be very different.</p><p>-- Terry</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one has talked about the purpose of these interviews.It 's unlikely any of the disclosed information could be usable for blackmail in any way.The purpose of a government agency obtaining all possible blackmail information about you is to prevent you from being blackmailed with the information under threat of disclosure of said information to your employer ( the government agency ) .
The safest answer ( for the agency ) to such an external threat is the target of the blackmail being able to say " they already know " .Most likely , the information disclosed will not in fact be usable for blackmail , as the article suggests , if the information was considered to have been mitigated sufficiently for the clearance to have been granted .
If the information was not mitigated , then there would not have been a clearance issues ; in that case , it might be a problem for the officer in question , but it wo n't impact their ability to do the job for which they were cleared to do.For example , if an officer engaged in an extramarital affair , but had disclosed that information to his wife , then the information could not be used as blackmail fodder in an attempt to coerce the officer to not perform their assigned duty .
If the information was not disclosed to his wife , then the officer would probably have been denied a clearance , and could face restrictions on their military duty , up to and including discharge from the military , to prevent that information being used to cause the officer to act as the attacker/enemy wanted during a conflict situation.It might be a problem unrelated to any national security concerns for the officer who disclosed unmitigated information , but it 's actually unlikely that the information would not be disclosed unless it was apriori mitigated ( unless the officer was " plain stupid " ) .The US criteria for denial and mitigation for reasons of denial is :         http : //www.smdc.army.mil/adr/adjguid/adjguidF.htm [ army.mil ] and I ca n't believe that the RAF criteria would be very different.-- Terry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one has talked about the purpose of these interviews.It's unlikely any of the disclosed information could be usable for blackmail in any way.The purpose of a government agency obtaining all possible blackmail information about you is to prevent you from being blackmailed with the information under threat of disclosure of said information to your employer (the government agency).
The safest answer (for the agency) to such an external threat is the target of the blackmail being able to say "they already know".Most likely, the information disclosed will not in fact be usable for blackmail, as the article suggests, if the information was considered to have been mitigated sufficiently for the clearance to have been granted.
If the information was not mitigated, then there would not have been a clearance issues; in that case, it might be a problem for the officer in question, but it won't impact their ability to do the job for which they were cleared to do.For example, if an officer engaged in an extramarital affair, but had disclosed that information to his wife, then the information could not be used as blackmail fodder in an attempt to coerce the officer to not perform their assigned duty.
If the information was not disclosed to his wife, then the officer would probably have been denied a clearance, and could face restrictions on their military duty, up to and including discharge from the military, to prevent that information being used to cause the officer to act as the attacker/enemy wanted during a conflict situation.It might be a problem unrelated to any national security concerns for the officer who disclosed unmitigated information, but it's actually unlikely that the information would not be disclosed unless it was apriori mitigated (unless the officer was "plain stupid").The US criteria for denial and mitigation for reasons of denial is:
        http://www.smdc.army.mil/adr/adjguid/adjguidF.htm [army.mil]and I can't believe that the RAF criteria would be very different.-- Terry</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121137</id>
	<title>Re:When were we a free society?</title>
	<author>horza</author>
	<datestamp>1243509360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the golden age ended when Tony Blair rolled tanks into Heathrow airport in 2003. Combine the detention without trial laws, eborders effectively making all English citizens prisoners in their own country, RIPA (even that is a watered down version of what the government wanted to be a key escrow scheme), data retention laws for ISPs, pressure on ISPs to adopt IWF censorship, copyright laws run wild thanks to the States (eg garage owners sued for mechanics playing music in the back room where customers might be able to hear it), speed cameras being turned from safety devices to profit-making machines, add this to the surveillance cameras, London road cameras tracking every car license plates, the genetic database being built up, the biometric ID cards coming, then throw in the inevitable banking laws that will come in under the auspices of anti laundering and tax evasion but will just give banks the ability to snoop into your personal life...</p><p>Life in the 90s was good. Post-9/11 things went downhill.</p><p>Phillip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the golden age ended when Tony Blair rolled tanks into Heathrow airport in 2003 .
Combine the detention without trial laws , eborders effectively making all English citizens prisoners in their own country , RIPA ( even that is a watered down version of what the government wanted to be a key escrow scheme ) , data retention laws for ISPs , pressure on ISPs to adopt IWF censorship , copyright laws run wild thanks to the States ( eg garage owners sued for mechanics playing music in the back room where customers might be able to hear it ) , speed cameras being turned from safety devices to profit-making machines , add this to the surveillance cameras , London road cameras tracking every car license plates , the genetic database being built up , the biometric ID cards coming , then throw in the inevitable banking laws that will come in under the auspices of anti laundering and tax evasion but will just give banks the ability to snoop into your personal life...Life in the 90s was good .
Post-9/11 things went downhill.Phillip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the golden age ended when Tony Blair rolled tanks into Heathrow airport in 2003.
Combine the detention without trial laws, eborders effectively making all English citizens prisoners in their own country, RIPA (even that is a watered down version of what the government wanted to be a key escrow scheme), data retention laws for ISPs, pressure on ISPs to adopt IWF censorship, copyright laws run wild thanks to the States (eg garage owners sued for mechanics playing music in the back room where customers might be able to hear it), speed cameras being turned from safety devices to profit-making machines, add this to the surveillance cameras, London road cameras tracking every car license plates, the genetic database being built up, the biometric ID cards coming, then throw in the inevitable banking laws that will come in under the auspices of anti laundering and tax evasion but will just give banks the ability to snoop into your personal life...Life in the 90s was good.
Post-9/11 things went downhill.Phillip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28122635</id>
	<title>Re:please explain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243520640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The royal family always gets in because of their connections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The royal family always gets in because of their connections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The royal family always gets in because of their connections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121019</id>
	<title>Re:Mind boggling</title>
	<author>16Chapel</author>
	<datestamp>1243508220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>*impressed*<br>
<br>
You, sir, could have a bright future in the intelligence services.  After all, what better way to ensure that your people are immune from blackmail than to have the other side using false information...</htmltext>
<tokenext>* impressed * You , sir , could have a bright future in the intelligence services .
After all , what better way to ensure that your people are immune from blackmail than to have the other side using false information.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*impressed*

You, sir, could have a bright future in the intelligence services.
After all, what better way to ensure that your people are immune from blackmail than to have the other side using false information...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120191</id>
	<title>That's quite simple, actually.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243542780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Someone wanna explain to me how drug-using hooker-banging ex-cons are OFFICERS IN THE ROYAL AIR FORCE?</p><p>Well, they can't <i>all</i> go into politics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Someone wan na explain to me how drug-using hooker-banging ex-cons are OFFICERS IN THE ROYAL AIR FORCE ? Well , they ca n't all go into politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Someone wanna explain to me how drug-using hooker-banging ex-cons are OFFICERS IN THE ROYAL AIR FORCE?Well, they can't all go into politics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120699</id>
	<title>Re:It's no wonder...</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1243505100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing has switched. Actually, people have been steaming angrily here for a while. I'm just waiting for the first to pop and accelerate some metal into a few banker's heads.</p><p>Call me in time for the funeral, I gotta dust off my tapdancing shoes. I wanna dance there! Preferably on the coffin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing has switched .
Actually , people have been steaming angrily here for a while .
I 'm just waiting for the first to pop and accelerate some metal into a few banker 's heads.Call me in time for the funeral , I got ta dust off my tapdancing shoes .
I wan na dance there !
Preferably on the coffin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing has switched.
Actually, people have been steaming angrily here for a while.
I'm just waiting for the first to pop and accelerate some metal into a few banker's heads.Call me in time for the funeral, I gotta dust off my tapdancing shoes.
I wanna dance there!
Preferably on the coffin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120931</id>
	<title>Reasons to refuse vetting..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243507440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3 basic problems with in depth vetting:</p><p>1 - someone else gets to know your secrets.  Yes, it's to establish which they have to watch to make sure you're not blackmailed, but there's in principle nothing to stop the abuse of that internally.  I would have said "ethics" earlier, but you can call me either a realist or a cynic now..</p><p>2 - deficient security.  As long as a whole government can get away with frankly shameful failures of confidentiality (unsurprising as it is for a setup that depends on spin and leaks to test and influence public opinion) there is nil incentive to do it right.  Or, put another way, "good enough" isn't.</p><p>3 - you end on a neat, handy short list of people who may know interesting stuff.  Translated: the issue (2) above results in you and your family having a target painted on your back, either as someone worth torturing for info or for killing in grotesquely painful ways.</p><p>However, be aware that those who ask very much think it's an honor to offer it (to be fair, it's quite a vote of trust), so expect them to be SERIOUSLY pissed off with you for saying "no", but the basic question is not if they trust *you*.</p><p>With "them" being an ever changing variable, the question is if you can trust *them*.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3 basic problems with in depth vetting : 1 - someone else gets to know your secrets .
Yes , it 's to establish which they have to watch to make sure you 're not blackmailed , but there 's in principle nothing to stop the abuse of that internally .
I would have said " ethics " earlier , but you can call me either a realist or a cynic now..2 - deficient security .
As long as a whole government can get away with frankly shameful failures of confidentiality ( unsurprising as it is for a setup that depends on spin and leaks to test and influence public opinion ) there is nil incentive to do it right .
Or , put another way , " good enough " is n't.3 - you end on a neat , handy short list of people who may know interesting stuff .
Translated : the issue ( 2 ) above results in you and your family having a target painted on your back , either as someone worth torturing for info or for killing in grotesquely painful ways.However , be aware that those who ask very much think it 's an honor to offer it ( to be fair , it 's quite a vote of trust ) , so expect them to be SERIOUSLY pissed off with you for saying " no " , but the basic question is not if they trust * you * .With " them " being an ever changing variable , the question is if you can trust * them * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3 basic problems with in depth vetting:1 - someone else gets to know your secrets.
Yes, it's to establish which they have to watch to make sure you're not blackmailed, but there's in principle nothing to stop the abuse of that internally.
I would have said "ethics" earlier, but you can call me either a realist or a cynic now..2 - deficient security.
As long as a whole government can get away with frankly shameful failures of confidentiality (unsurprising as it is for a setup that depends on spin and leaks to test and influence public opinion) there is nil incentive to do it right.
Or, put another way, "good enough" isn't.3 - you end on a neat, handy short list of people who may know interesting stuff.
Translated: the issue (2) above results in you and your family having a target painted on your back, either as someone worth torturing for info or for killing in grotesquely painful ways.However, be aware that those who ask very much think it's an honor to offer it (to be fair, it's quite a vote of trust), so expect them to be SERIOUSLY pissed off with you for saying "no", but the basic question is not if they trust *you*.With "them" being an ever changing variable, the question is if you can trust *them*.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119615</id>
	<title>Oh, the irony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243449600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably the reason they want to know about hos and dope is to assess their vulnerability to blackmail in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably the reason they want to know about hos and dope is to assess their vulnerability to blackmail in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably the reason they want to know about hos and dope is to assess their vulnerability to blackmail in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120867</id>
	<title>Re:Tell me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243506780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because if they encrypt it, they could risk <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/16/0311217" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Going to Prison?</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because if they encrypt it , they could risk Going to Prison ?
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because if they encrypt it, they could risk Going to Prison?
[slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121745</id>
	<title>Re:Tell me...</title>
	<author>moogsynth</author>
	<datestamp>1243515840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The UK Government loses lots of disks. Many of them are encrypted. Unfortunately, they usually have the password written on a post-it stuck on the drive when it is lost.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The UK Government loses lots of disks .
Many of them are encrypted .
Unfortunately , they usually have the password written on a post-it stuck on the drive when it is lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UK Government loses lots of disks.
Many of them are encrypted.
Unfortunately, they usually have the password written on a post-it stuck on the drive when it is lost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119825</id>
	<title>Re:Since the RAF already knows...</title>
	<author>MaskedSlacker</author>
	<datestamp>1243451460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because their bosses already know doesn't mean their wives did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because their bosses already know does n't mean their wives did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because their bosses already know doesn't mean their wives did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28124155</id>
	<title>Re:Disappeared == data breach?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1243527720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's in the nature of security that if you no longer know where it is or who might see it that it cannot be considered secured anymore. If it is not secured, it is breached.  Later, if they find the drives and can somehow PROVE beyond doubt that nobody ever looked at the data on it before wiping it out for their pr0n collection, they can declare it destroyed rather than breached, but good luck with that.</p><p>Put another way, strategically, if data has been outside of your control for any length of time, you can no longer assume than an adversary does not have a copy. What you HOPE doesn't matter in these situations, it's what you can be certain of that matters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's in the nature of security that if you no longer know where it is or who might see it that it can not be considered secured anymore .
If it is not secured , it is breached .
Later , if they find the drives and can somehow PROVE beyond doubt that nobody ever looked at the data on it before wiping it out for their pr0n collection , they can declare it destroyed rather than breached , but good luck with that.Put another way , strategically , if data has been outside of your control for any length of time , you can no longer assume than an adversary does not have a copy .
What you HOPE does n't matter in these situations , it 's what you can be certain of that matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's in the nature of security that if you no longer know where it is or who might see it that it cannot be considered secured anymore.
If it is not secured, it is breached.
Later, if they find the drives and can somehow PROVE beyond doubt that nobody ever looked at the data on it before wiping it out for their pr0n collection, they can declare it destroyed rather than breached, but good luck with that.Put another way, strategically, if data has been outside of your control for any length of time, you can no longer assume than an adversary does not have a copy.
What you HOPE doesn't matter in these situations, it's what you can be certain of that matters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119605</id>
	<title>I feel MUCH safer now!</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1243449480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> These are the same idiots who are putting surveillance cameras everywhere, fingerprinting and taking DNA samples from musicians who are simply visiting the UK to play in a few clubs (then denying them entrance because the clubs hadn't paid a fee and agreed to report on them), and generally acting like fascists. </p><p> They're great at grabbing reams of private information they would have no right to if Britain were still a free society.  Protecting it from unauthorized access?  Not so much. </p><p> Goddamn wankers! </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These are the same idiots who are putting surveillance cameras everywhere , fingerprinting and taking DNA samples from musicians who are simply visiting the UK to play in a few clubs ( then denying them entrance because the clubs had n't paid a fee and agreed to report on them ) , and generally acting like fascists .
They 're great at grabbing reams of private information they would have no right to if Britain were still a free society .
Protecting it from unauthorized access ?
Not so much .
Goddamn wankers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> These are the same idiots who are putting surveillance cameras everywhere, fingerprinting and taking DNA samples from musicians who are simply visiting the UK to play in a few clubs (then denying them entrance because the clubs hadn't paid a fee and agreed to report on them), and generally acting like fascists.
They're great at grabbing reams of private information they would have no right to if Britain were still a free society.
Protecting it from unauthorized access?
Not so much.
Goddamn wankers! </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119979</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243453860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone important in the UK not been exposed in the tabloids?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone important in the UK not been exposed in the tabloids ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone important in the UK not been exposed in the tabloids?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120479</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if you do...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243502880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If yes to any of the above do you want these as officers? Even the extra-marital affairs in most circumstances provide proof that the person is capable of disloyalty</p></div><p>incorrect.  The DV clearance (which does a thorough check of ones past and present) does not check for loyalty, it checks for trustability.  The clearance system is not a moral judge - if you happen to wear frilly knickers and answer to the name "Joan the slag" at the weekends - that is up to you - so long as you could not be bribed, coerced or blackmailed based on that information about your personal life.
</p><p>
Stuff came out in my DV interviews about the number of girlfriends I had at that time (clearly not a regular on slashdot) and my view was that I couldn't give a fuck about it.  They seemed to like that.  The subject of what was in my Pr0n collection made for interesting conversation although, I clocked an interviewers notes and he had written 'normal' in that column.  that pissed me off.
</p><p>
In my interview, they asked me about my political persuasions - I said I'd hang all the MP's from the nearest bridge if I had half a chance.  They liked that as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If yes to any of the above do you want these as officers ?
Even the extra-marital affairs in most circumstances provide proof that the person is capable of disloyaltyincorrect .
The DV clearance ( which does a thorough check of ones past and present ) does not check for loyalty , it checks for trustability .
The clearance system is not a moral judge - if you happen to wear frilly knickers and answer to the name " Joan the slag " at the weekends - that is up to you - so long as you could not be bribed , coerced or blackmailed based on that information about your personal life .
Stuff came out in my DV interviews about the number of girlfriends I had at that time ( clearly not a regular on slashdot ) and my view was that I could n't give a fuck about it .
They seemed to like that .
The subject of what was in my Pr0n collection made for interesting conversation although , I clocked an interviewers notes and he had written 'normal ' in that column .
that pissed me off .
In my interview , they asked me about my political persuasions - I said I 'd hang all the MP 's from the nearest bridge if I had half a chance .
They liked that as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If yes to any of the above do you want these as officers?
Even the extra-marital affairs in most circumstances provide proof that the person is capable of disloyaltyincorrect.
The DV clearance (which does a thorough check of ones past and present) does not check for loyalty, it checks for trustability.
The clearance system is not a moral judge - if you happen to wear frilly knickers and answer to the name "Joan the slag" at the weekends - that is up to you - so long as you could not be bribed, coerced or blackmailed based on that information about your personal life.
Stuff came out in my DV interviews about the number of girlfriends I had at that time (clearly not a regular on slashdot) and my view was that I couldn't give a fuck about it.
They seemed to like that.
The subject of what was in my Pr0n collection made for interesting conversation although, I clocked an interviewers notes and he had written 'normal' in that column.
that pissed me off.
In my interview, they asked me about my political persuasions - I said I'd hang all the MP's from the nearest bridge if I had half a chance.
They liked that as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121693</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if you do...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243515540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."</p><p>Probably the single most ignored line from the Bible. Ignored, or interpreted as an incentive to try and be totally sinless so that you can castigate gays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Let he who is without sin cast the first stone .
" Probably the single most ignored line from the Bible .
Ignored , or interpreted as an incentive to try and be totally sinless so that you can castigate gays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
"Probably the single most ignored line from the Bible.
Ignored, or interpreted as an incentive to try and be totally sinless so that you can castigate gays.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28124361</id>
	<title>Blackmail is such an ugly word...</title>
	<author>gnarlyhotep</author>
	<datestamp>1243528440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I prefer extortion.  The X makes it sound cool.  -Bender</htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer extortion .
The X makes it sound cool .
-Bender</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer extortion.
The X makes it sound cool.
-Bender</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120431</id>
	<title>Re:Tell me...</title>
	<author>fluch</author>
	<datestamp>1243502580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be new to the UK...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be new to the UK.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be new to the UK...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119931</id>
	<title>UK Government loses all data on everyone</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1243453140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Annual reports from Whitehall departments show that the government has lost <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2008/08/25/uk-government-loses-all-data-on-everyone/" title="today.com">all data it ever held on anyone</a> [today.com].</p><p>Losses have occurred through couriered unencrypted disks, misplaced memory sticks, lost laptops, briefcases left on trains and files falling down the side of the tea machine. "The real scandal is that a train was running for them to lose a case on," said a source whose name has been lost.
</p><p>Treasury minister Jane Kennedy said the HM Revenue and Customs breaches did not necessarily result in data losses, or at least any that they have records of. HMRC said it takes data losses and security breaches "very seriously" and thoroughly investigates any breach that it does not lose track of.
</p><p>
Information Commissioner Richard Thomas has served enforcement notices on various departments for their data losses, but the departments in question could not find their office addresses to accept the notices. They noted, however, that Mr Thomas' call was very important to them, and that he had been placed in a queue.
</p><p>
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith reassured citizens that plans for an all-encompassing ID card linked to biometric passports and a universal medical record with the NHS would not change because of these losses. "We won't even be thinking about them."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Annual reports from Whitehall departments show that the government has lost all data it ever held on anyone [ today.com ] .Losses have occurred through couriered unencrypted disks , misplaced memory sticks , lost laptops , briefcases left on trains and files falling down the side of the tea machine .
" The real scandal is that a train was running for them to lose a case on , " said a source whose name has been lost .
Treasury minister Jane Kennedy said the HM Revenue and Customs breaches did not necessarily result in data losses , or at least any that they have records of .
HMRC said it takes data losses and security breaches " very seriously " and thoroughly investigates any breach that it does not lose track of .
Information Commissioner Richard Thomas has served enforcement notices on various departments for their data losses , but the departments in question could not find their office addresses to accept the notices .
They noted , however , that Mr Thomas ' call was very important to them , and that he had been placed in a queue .
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith reassured citizens that plans for an all-encompassing ID card linked to biometric passports and a universal medical record with the NHS would not change because of these losses .
" We wo n't even be thinking about them .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Annual reports from Whitehall departments show that the government has lost all data it ever held on anyone [today.com].Losses have occurred through couriered unencrypted disks, misplaced memory sticks, lost laptops, briefcases left on trains and files falling down the side of the tea machine.
"The real scandal is that a train was running for them to lose a case on," said a source whose name has been lost.
Treasury minister Jane Kennedy said the HM Revenue and Customs breaches did not necessarily result in data losses, or at least any that they have records of.
HMRC said it takes data losses and security breaches "very seriously" and thoroughly investigates any breach that it does not lose track of.
Information Commissioner Richard Thomas has served enforcement notices on various departments for their data losses, but the departments in question could not find their office addresses to accept the notices.
They noted, however, that Mr Thomas' call was very important to them, and that he had been placed in a queue.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith reassured citizens that plans for an all-encompassing ID card linked to biometric passports and a universal medical record with the NHS would not change because of these losses.
"We won't even be thinking about them.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120503</id>
	<title>Re:Disappeared == data breach?</title>
	<author>TheP4st</author>
	<datestamp>1243503180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Really, the media and everyone here is getting their panties all in a twist and coming up with fantastical hypothetical situation when the most likely scenario is nothing bad will come from this as it rarely does.</p></div><p>So, since something bad rarely happens from situations like these, lets skip encryption all together on sensitive data?
<br> Or, maybe it would be a good idea to prepare for the worst, and then be able to say "Sure we fucked up and lost these hard drives but they are heavily encrypted thus minimizing the chance for the actual information <b>ever</b> ending up in the wrong hands .</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , the media and everyone here is getting their panties all in a twist and coming up with fantastical hypothetical situation when the most likely scenario is nothing bad will come from this as it rarely does.So , since something bad rarely happens from situations like these , lets skip encryption all together on sensitive data ?
Or , maybe it would be a good idea to prepare for the worst , and then be able to say " Sure we fucked up and lost these hard drives but they are heavily encrypted thus minimizing the chance for the actual information ever ending up in the wrong hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, the media and everyone here is getting their panties all in a twist and coming up with fantastical hypothetical situation when the most likely scenario is nothing bad will come from this as it rarely does.So, since something bad rarely happens from situations like these, lets skip encryption all together on sensitive data?
Or, maybe it would be a good idea to prepare for the worst, and then be able to say "Sure we fucked up and lost these hard drives but they are heavily encrypted thus minimizing the chance for the actual information ever ending up in the wrong hands .
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120045</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28124737</id>
	<title>Liability?</title>
	<author>Akita24</author>
	<datestamp>1243529940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Since they didn't protect that information, shouldn't they have to pay off the blackmailers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since they did n't protect that information , should n't they have to pay off the blackmailers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Since they didn't protect that information, shouldn't they have to pay off the blackmailers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120225</id>
	<title>When were we a free society?</title>
	<author>fantomas</author>
	<datestamp>1243543500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"They're great at grabbing reams of private information they would have no right to if Britain were still a free society."</i></p><p>When were we ever a free society? When has any country been "free"? I suppose there's a philosophical discussion to be had here but I get the sense that</p><ul><li> a: we might be as free now as we've ever been and</li><li> b: this is close to a conversation about a mythical golden age that never was (I like the definition that golden ages are invariably the belief that things were better two generations ago)...</li></ul><p>Interested to hear when you think the UK was a 'free' society. It would have to probably be after 1928 - universal suffrage, before then women under 28 couldn't vote so they weren't very free. Couldn't be 1939 - 1952 as we had identity cards then. Interested to hear your definition of 'free'.</p><p>cheers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" They 're great at grabbing reams of private information they would have no right to if Britain were still a free society .
" When were we ever a free society ?
When has any country been " free " ?
I suppose there 's a philosophical discussion to be had here but I get the sense that a : we might be as free now as we 've ever been and b : this is close to a conversation about a mythical golden age that never was ( I like the definition that golden ages are invariably the belief that things were better two generations ago ) ...Interested to hear when you think the UK was a 'free ' society .
It would have to probably be after 1928 - universal suffrage , before then women under 28 could n't vote so they were n't very free .
Could n't be 1939 - 1952 as we had identity cards then .
Interested to hear your definition of 'free'.cheers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They're great at grabbing reams of private information they would have no right to if Britain were still a free society.
"When were we ever a free society?
When has any country been "free"?
I suppose there's a philosophical discussion to be had here but I get the sense that a: we might be as free now as we've ever been and b: this is close to a conversation about a mythical golden age that never was (I like the definition that golden ages are invariably the belief that things were better two generations ago)...Interested to hear when you think the UK was a 'free' society.
It would have to probably be after 1928 - universal suffrage, before then women under 28 couldn't vote so they weren't very free.
Couldn't be 1939 - 1952 as we had identity cards then.
Interested to hear your definition of 'free'.cheers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121775</id>
	<title>Re:please explain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243515960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Drug using: As long as it isn't in the last year, it isn't an instant fail</p><p>Hooker-banging: Not a crime</p><p>Ex-cons: In the UK, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act means that after a certain period of time a conviction can be considered "spent"</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm thinking that they'd be considered "spent" immediately after the hooker-banging</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Drug using : As long as it is n't in the last year , it is n't an instant failHooker-banging : Not a crimeEx-cons : In the UK , the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act means that after a certain period of time a conviction can be considered " spent " I 'm thinking that they 'd be considered " spent " immediately after the hooker-banging</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Drug using: As long as it isn't in the last year, it isn't an instant failHooker-banging: Not a crimeEx-cons: In the UK, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act means that after a certain period of time a conviction can be considered "spent"I'm thinking that they'd be considered "spent" immediately after the hooker-banging
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28125603</id>
	<title>Re:please explain</title>
	<author>ljw1004</author>
	<datestamp>1243533660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article didn't make it clear, but this data-loss concerns only people who FAILED the vetting process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article did n't make it clear , but this data-loss concerns only people who FAILED the vetting process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article didn't make it clear, but this data-loss concerns only people who FAILED the vetting process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28122301</id>
	<title>So what...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1243519020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please, if they have an ounce of backbone, they will tell them....<br>"so what....what's new with this, look at our prince William, hell, if you haven't rung him out to dry, why start now?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , if they have an ounce of backbone , they will tell them.... " so what....what 's new with this , look at our prince William , hell , if you have n't rung him out to dry , why start now ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, if they have an ounce of backbone, they will tell them...."so what....what's new with this, look at our prince William, hell, if you haven't rung him out to dry, why start now?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119427</id>
	<title>Since the RAF already knows...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243447620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...doesn't this kind of mute the blackmail angle for the RAF security?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...does n't this kind of mute the blackmail angle for the RAF security ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...doesn't this kind of mute the blackmail angle for the RAF security?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119987</id>
	<title>Re:please explain</title>
	<author>bloobloo</author>
	<datestamp>1243453980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Drug using: As long as it isn't in the last year, it isn't an instant fail</p><p>Hooker-banging: Not a crime</p><p>Ex-cons: In the UK, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act means that after a certain period of time a conviction can be considered "spent"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Drug using : As long as it is n't in the last year , it is n't an instant failHooker-banging : Not a crimeEx-cons : In the UK , the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act means that after a certain period of time a conviction can be considered " spent "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Drug using: As long as it isn't in the last year, it isn't an instant failHooker-banging: Not a crimeEx-cons: In the UK, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act means that after a certain period of time a conviction can be considered "spent"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119937</id>
	<title>Re:Damned if you do...</title>
	<author>LaskoVortex</author>
	<datestamp>1243453260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If yes to any of the above do you want these as officers?</p></div><p>If you threw out everyone who has ever done that one "immoral" thing, you'd have no one left. Everyone makes mistakes. Its even in the bible somewhere--a story about throwing stones (disclaimer: never read the bible). These are officers of a military. They are trained to kill people. Measure the morality of their actions against that fact and you'll find that indulging in something like and extramarital affair is minor by comparison. My only surprise is here is the lack of encryption.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If yes to any of the above do you want these as officers ? If you threw out everyone who has ever done that one " immoral " thing , you 'd have no one left .
Everyone makes mistakes .
Its even in the bible somewhere--a story about throwing stones ( disclaimer : never read the bible ) .
These are officers of a military .
They are trained to kill people .
Measure the morality of their actions against that fact and you 'll find that indulging in something like and extramarital affair is minor by comparison .
My only surprise is here is the lack of encryption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If yes to any of the above do you want these as officers?If you threw out everyone who has ever done that one "immoral" thing, you'd have no one left.
Everyone makes mistakes.
Its even in the bible somewhere--a story about throwing stones (disclaimer: never read the bible).
These are officers of a military.
They are trained to kill people.
Measure the morality of their actions against that fact and you'll find that indulging in something like and extramarital affair is minor by comparison.
My only surprise is here is the lack of encryption.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28134653</id>
	<title>Why the hell would they even store this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243531200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why? This kind of blackmail-worth information is just begging to be leaked, lost, abused, stolen, accessed or subject to salacious gossip. Given the eventual likelihood that this kind of recording could be leaked or lost, and the potential damage to the personal lives of individuals admitting to their transgressions IN THEIR OWN VOICE on a tape, what idiot thought it should be stored?</p><p>`Because we could' is no excuse. If data doesn't exist, it can't be stolen, lost, leaked, or used for blackmail. Now the RAF has to deal with the potential of blackmail, and the loss of trust. Who is going to be as open about their secrets, secrets that the RAF needs to know in order to maintain their security, when each interviewee knows that a full voice recording could be kept, and might be played on the six PM news. And the golden turd is awarded for trying to cover it up, even from their own superiors.</p><p>The only information that cannot be lost is that which has been destroyed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ?
This kind of blackmail-worth information is just begging to be leaked , lost , abused , stolen , accessed or subject to salacious gossip .
Given the eventual likelihood that this kind of recording could be leaked or lost , and the potential damage to the personal lives of individuals admitting to their transgressions IN THEIR OWN VOICE on a tape , what idiot thought it should be stored ? ` Because we could ' is no excuse .
If data does n't exist , it ca n't be stolen , lost , leaked , or used for blackmail .
Now the RAF has to deal with the potential of blackmail , and the loss of trust .
Who is going to be as open about their secrets , secrets that the RAF needs to know in order to maintain their security , when each interviewee knows that a full voice recording could be kept , and might be played on the six PM news .
And the golden turd is awarded for trying to cover it up , even from their own superiors.The only information that can not be lost is that which has been destroyed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?
This kind of blackmail-worth information is just begging to be leaked, lost, abused, stolen, accessed or subject to salacious gossip.
Given the eventual likelihood that this kind of recording could be leaked or lost, and the potential damage to the personal lives of individuals admitting to their transgressions IN THEIR OWN VOICE on a tape, what idiot thought it should be stored?`Because we could' is no excuse.
If data doesn't exist, it can't be stolen, lost, leaked, or used for blackmail.
Now the RAF has to deal with the potential of blackmail, and the loss of trust.
Who is going to be as open about their secrets, secrets that the RAF needs to know in order to maintain their security, when each interviewee knows that a full voice recording could be kept, and might be played on the six PM news.
And the golden turd is awarded for trying to cover it up, even from their own superiors.The only information that cannot be lost is that which has been destroyed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28124549</id>
	<title>Re:Tell me...</title>
	<author>yuna49</author>
	<datestamp>1243529160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bloody git!</p><p>The standard method for data storage in the UK is up your nose, not up your arse.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYLcZznNdvw" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYLcZznNdvw</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bloody git ! The standard method for data storage in the UK is up your nose , not up your arse.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = AYLcZznNdvw [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bloody git!The standard method for data storage in the UK is up your nose, not up your arse.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYLcZznNdvw [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119821</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28125343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28124549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28122087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28123787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28124155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28123329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28122635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28124009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28123221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28122225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120877
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28122403
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28123435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120207
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28130441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28125603
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_27_2317213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_2317213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28123435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119987
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121437
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28122087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28125603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28122635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28124009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28123787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_2317213.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_2317213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120045
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28125343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28123329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28124155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120503
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_2317213.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120225
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120877
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121351
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_2317213.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121745
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28123221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119821
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28124549
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_2317213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119499
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120345
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_2317213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28122403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119899
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28122225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120095
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_2317213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119923
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_2317213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119551
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_2317213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121019
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_2317213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119533
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_2317213.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119831
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_2317213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120171
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_27_2317213.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28130441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28121693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28119773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_27_2317213.28120363
</commentlist>
</conversation>
