<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_02_2311213</id>
	<title>Detailed Privacy Study Finds Loopholes Galore</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1243950000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://sharealike.org/" rel="nofollow">BrianWCarver</a> writes <i>"The San Francisco Business Times covers a study by student researchers at UC Berkeley's School of Information pointing up the <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/06/01/daily22.html">massive holes in privacy policies and protections</a> of which US companies take advantage. The researchers have released a study and launched a Web site, <a href="http://knowprivacy.org/">knowprivacy.org</a>, in which they found that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web\_bug">Web bugs</a> from Google and its subsidiaries were placed on 92 of the <a href="http://www.quantcast.com/top-sites-1">top 100</a> Web sites and 88 percent of the approximately 394,000 unique domains examined in the study. This larger data set was provided by the maintainer of the Firefox plugin <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/9609">Ghostery</a>, which shows users which Web bugs are on the sites they visit. The study also found that while the privacy policies of many popular Web sites claim that the sites do not share information with third parties, they do allow third parties to place Web bugs on their sites (which collect this information directly, typically without users' knowledge) and share with corporate 'affiliates.' Bank of America, to take one extreme example, has more than 2,300 affiliates &mdash; and users cannot learn their identities. The full report and more findings are available from <a href="http://knowprivacy.org/">their Web site</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>BrianWCarver writes " The San Francisco Business Times covers a study by student researchers at UC Berkeley 's School of Information pointing up the massive holes in privacy policies and protections of which US companies take advantage .
The researchers have released a study and launched a Web site , knowprivacy.org , in which they found that Web bugs from Google and its subsidiaries were placed on 92 of the top 100 Web sites and 88 percent of the approximately 394,000 unique domains examined in the study .
This larger data set was provided by the maintainer of the Firefox plugin Ghostery , which shows users which Web bugs are on the sites they visit .
The study also found that while the privacy policies of many popular Web sites claim that the sites do not share information with third parties , they do allow third parties to place Web bugs on their sites ( which collect this information directly , typically without users ' knowledge ) and share with corporate 'affiliates .
' Bank of America , to take one extreme example , has more than 2,300 affiliates    and users can not learn their identities .
The full report and more findings are available from their Web site .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BrianWCarver writes "The San Francisco Business Times covers a study by student researchers at UC Berkeley's School of Information pointing up the massive holes in privacy policies and protections of which US companies take advantage.
The researchers have released a study and launched a Web site, knowprivacy.org, in which they found that Web bugs from Google and its subsidiaries were placed on 92 of the top 100 Web sites and 88 percent of the approximately 394,000 unique domains examined in the study.
This larger data set was provided by the maintainer of the Firefox plugin Ghostery, which shows users which Web bugs are on the sites they visit.
The study also found that while the privacy policies of many popular Web sites claim that the sites do not share information with third parties, they do allow third parties to place Web bugs on their sites (which collect this information directly, typically without users' knowledge) and share with corporate 'affiliates.
' Bank of America, to take one extreme example, has more than 2,300 affiliates — and users cannot learn their identities.
The full report and more findings are available from their Web site.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28195149</id>
	<title>noscript/adblock plus</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244041200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does using noscript and/or adblock to block the web bug html and associated scripting effectively stop the tracking?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does using noscript and/or adblock to block the web bug html and associated scripting effectively stop the tracking ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does using noscript and/or adblock to block the web bug html and associated scripting effectively stop the tracking?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28193683</id>
	<title>Re:Guilty as charged</title>
	<author>NickFortune</author>
	<datestamp>1244030280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'Web bugs' are nothing new, you've just been too dumb to notice them in the pst.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Actually, I noticed them in the past and I didn't like them then, either.
Nice to see the bad news reaching a new set of surfers though.
</p><blockquote><div><p>'People' don't CARE if they are tracked</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Actually, by your own argument, most people don't <i>know</i> they're being tracked. And in my experience, when they find out, a lot of them freak out. Which is more of less what you're seeing here.
</p><p>
Incidentally, why the quotes around "people"? Do you feel the word was
poorly chosen? Who do you think this issue affects, if not people?
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Web bugs ' are nothing new , you 've just been too dumb to notice them in the pst .
Actually , I noticed them in the past and I did n't like them then , either .
Nice to see the bad news reaching a new set of surfers though .
'People ' do n't CARE if they are tracked Actually , by your own argument , most people do n't know they 're being tracked .
And in my experience , when they find out , a lot of them freak out .
Which is more of less what you 're seeing here .
Incidentally , why the quotes around " people " ?
Do you feel the word was poorly chosen ?
Who do you think this issue affects , if not people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Web bugs' are nothing new, you've just been too dumb to notice them in the pst.
Actually, I noticed them in the past and I didn't like them then, either.
Nice to see the bad news reaching a new set of surfers though.
'People' don't CARE if they are tracked

Actually, by your own argument, most people don't know they're being tracked.
And in my experience, when they find out, a lot of them freak out.
Which is more of less what you're seeing here.
Incidentally, why the quotes around "people"?
Do you feel the word was
poorly chosen?
Who do you think this issue affects, if not people?

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191195</id>
	<title>Even whitehouse.gov has a web bug</title>
	<author>karl.auerbach</author>
	<datestamp>1243957980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even the Whitehouse.gov website has a 1x1 pixel web bug that is in violation of their own privacy policy, not to mention 5 USC 552a.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even the Whitehouse.gov website has a 1x1 pixel web bug that is in violation of their own privacy policy , not to mention 5 USC 552a .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even the Whitehouse.gov website has a 1x1 pixel web bug that is in violation of their own privacy policy, not to mention 5 USC 552a.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190905</id>
	<title>Definition of Naivete: Find Pic of John Q Public</title>
	<author>gpronger</author>
	<datestamp>1243955040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We had a president that wasn't having sex with the intern, just doing everything else.<br> <br>
The next one tells us that we're not torturing anyone, right after he re-writes the definition.<br> <br>
I guess the point is that if there's a will there's a way, particularly if there's gun's, sex, or money involved (not quite certain if I have the order right though).<br> <br>I guess there should be some sense of moral outrage here, but I guess I'm all out of that.<br> <br>

Greg</htmltext>
<tokenext>We had a president that was n't having sex with the intern , just doing everything else .
The next one tells us that we 're not torturing anyone , right after he re-writes the definition .
I guess the point is that if there 's a will there 's a way , particularly if there 's gun 's , sex , or money involved ( not quite certain if I have the order right though ) .
I guess there should be some sense of moral outrage here , but I guess I 'm all out of that .
Greg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We had a president that wasn't having sex with the intern, just doing everything else.
The next one tells us that we're not torturing anyone, right after he re-writes the definition.
I guess the point is that if there's a will there's a way, particularly if there's gun's, sex, or money involved (not quite certain if I have the order right though).
I guess there should be some sense of moral outrage here, but I guess I'm all out of that.
Greg</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191549</id>
	<title>bad analogy time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243961100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>claim that the sites do not share information with third parties, they do allow third parties to place Web bugs on their sites</p></div> </blockquote><p>So the hooker has a second customer behind the oneway mirror, and she's not "sharing" information about you because she doesn't supply notes with the second customer later?</p><p>Would this stand in court in the US? Presumably the lawyers who draft these statements base them on some sort of defensible argument.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>claim that the sites do not share information with third parties , they do allow third parties to place Web bugs on their sites So the hooker has a second customer behind the oneway mirror , and she 's not " sharing " information about you because she does n't supply notes with the second customer later ? Would this stand in court in the US ?
Presumably the lawyers who draft these statements base them on some sort of defensible argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>claim that the sites do not share information with third parties, they do allow third parties to place Web bugs on their sites So the hooker has a second customer behind the oneway mirror, and she's not "sharing" information about you because she doesn't supply notes with the second customer later?Would this stand in court in the US?
Presumably the lawyers who draft these statements base them on some sort of defensible argument.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191725</id>
	<title>Privacy is Possible</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1243962660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If people are concerned about their privacy then why don't they use <a href="http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/" title="mozilla.com">Firefox</a> [mozilla.com], <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865" title="mozilla.org">AdBlock</a> [mozilla.org], <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/433" title="mozilla.org">Flashblock</a> [mozilla.org], and <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/722" title="mozilla.org">NoScript</a> [mozilla.org]? The truly paranoid can download and use <a href="http://www.torproject.org/easy-download.html.en" title="torproject.org">Tor</a> [torproject.org] as well. Do people have a right to complain if they aren't willing to lift a finger to protect themselves?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If people are concerned about their privacy then why do n't they use Firefox [ mozilla.com ] , AdBlock [ mozilla.org ] , Flashblock [ mozilla.org ] , and NoScript [ mozilla.org ] ?
The truly paranoid can download and use Tor [ torproject.org ] as well .
Do people have a right to complain if they are n't willing to lift a finger to protect themselves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people are concerned about their privacy then why don't they use Firefox [mozilla.com], AdBlock [mozilla.org], Flashblock [mozilla.org], and NoScript [mozilla.org]?
The truly paranoid can download and use Tor [torproject.org] as well.
Do people have a right to complain if they aren't willing to lift a finger to protect themselves?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192805</id>
	<title>Re:Guilty as charged</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1244061660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And I mean you can take them off later (delete the cookies and all that), but then every other store provides the exact same sticker and some require you to present the sticker at every counter for service. It's something that a paranoid would probably say already happens, but the fact is, that this is turning us *all* paranoid. I don't like being paranoid.</p></div><p>Sounds just like my credit card. Except it's not mandatory yet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I mean you can take them off later ( delete the cookies and all that ) , but then every other store provides the exact same sticker and some require you to present the sticker at every counter for service .
It 's something that a paranoid would probably say already happens , but the fact is , that this is turning us * all * paranoid .
I do n't like being paranoid.Sounds just like my credit card .
Except it 's not mandatory yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I mean you can take them off later (delete the cookies and all that), but then every other store provides the exact same sticker and some require you to present the sticker at every counter for service.
It's something that a paranoid would probably say already happens, but the fact is, that this is turning us *all* paranoid.
I don't like being paranoid.Sounds just like my credit card.
Except it's not mandatory yet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28195415</id>
	<title>Re:Guilty as charged</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244042400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course by the time you wrote your comment you were aware of the fact, that URL shorteners have a preview function.<br>Like in <a href="http://preview.tinyurl.com/pleaseclickmeomg" title="tinyurl.com" rel="nofollow">http://preview.tinyurl.com/pleaseclickmeomg</a> [tinyurl.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course by the time you wrote your comment you were aware of the fact , that URL shorteners have a preview function.Like in http : //preview.tinyurl.com/pleaseclickmeomg [ tinyurl.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course by the time you wrote your comment you were aware of the fact, that URL shorteners have a preview function.Like in http://preview.tinyurl.com/pleaseclickmeomg [tinyurl.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28193313</id>
	<title>google and privacy</title>
	<author>jaiteace</author>
	<datestamp>1244025060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google has a very simple mission. They want to know what you and your IP are doing. That's all. Give them that, and they own you and your activity on the internets.</p><p>To get at this simple little piece of info, web sites get cool stuff like googleanalytics (info already available via other tools). You say "Nice". Google says thank you very much for your kind words, we do this because we want to give back to the community. Yeah right.</p><p>Users get to use cool stuff like gmail (unfortunately very good, but lots of alternatives), and all the other freebies, search and all the rest. All brought together under that simple little cookie at google.com. Google: "we love building cool stuff. We call it giving back."</p><p>The real killer for me, the one that almost makes me wonder about mozilla and the supposed superstar salaries some of them get paid, is that firefox's "safebrowsing" is driven by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... yep, go take a look for yourself.</p><p>What do they say about hiring the fox to guard the chicken coop? Every request you put out gets checked out before you get there - Is it really safe for this dumb schmuck to go there?</p><p>Have you ever tried to disable safebrowsing? Are you mad?!</p><p>I could start getting paranoid about all of this, but actually I'm a trusting sort of person, after all, these are the guys that promised to do no evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has a very simple mission .
They want to know what you and your IP are doing .
That 's all .
Give them that , and they own you and your activity on the internets.To get at this simple little piece of info , web sites get cool stuff like googleanalytics ( info already available via other tools ) .
You say " Nice " .
Google says thank you very much for your kind words , we do this because we want to give back to the community .
Yeah right.Users get to use cool stuff like gmail ( unfortunately very good , but lots of alternatives ) , and all the other freebies , search and all the rest .
All brought together under that simple little cookie at google.com .
Google : " we love building cool stuff .
We call it giving back .
" The real killer for me , the one that almost makes me wonder about mozilla and the supposed superstar salaries some of them get paid , is that firefox 's " safebrowsing " is driven by ... yep , go take a look for yourself.What do they say about hiring the fox to guard the chicken coop ?
Every request you put out gets checked out before you get there - Is it really safe for this dumb schmuck to go there ? Have you ever tried to disable safebrowsing ?
Are you mad ?
! I could start getting paranoid about all of this , but actually I 'm a trusting sort of person , after all , these are the guys that promised to do no evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has a very simple mission.
They want to know what you and your IP are doing.
That's all.
Give them that, and they own you and your activity on the internets.To get at this simple little piece of info, web sites get cool stuff like googleanalytics (info already available via other tools).
You say "Nice".
Google says thank you very much for your kind words, we do this because we want to give back to the community.
Yeah right.Users get to use cool stuff like gmail (unfortunately very good, but lots of alternatives), and all the other freebies, search and all the rest.
All brought together under that simple little cookie at google.com.
Google: "we love building cool stuff.
We call it giving back.
"The real killer for me, the one that almost makes me wonder about mozilla and the supposed superstar salaries some of them get paid, is that firefox's "safebrowsing" is driven by ... yep, go take a look for yourself.What do they say about hiring the fox to guard the chicken coop?
Every request you put out gets checked out before you get there - Is it really safe for this dumb schmuck to go there?Have you ever tried to disable safebrowsing?
Are you mad?
!I could start getting paranoid about all of this, but actually I'm a trusting sort of person, after all, these are the guys that promised to do no evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190717</id>
	<title>Defective by design</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243953780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The law: this is the thing that <b>really</b> deserves this tag.</p><p>Defective by design, my friends. You have no privacy from the powerful.</p><p>--<br>Toro</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The law : this is the thing that really deserves this tag.Defective by design , my friends .
You have no privacy from the powerful.--Toro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The law: this is the thing that really deserves this tag.Defective by design, my friends.
You have no privacy from the powerful.--Toro</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191025</id>
	<title>one word</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243956420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>duh</htmltext>
<tokenext>duh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>duh</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28194001</id>
	<title>Doubleclick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244034420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ghostery found 1 web bug on Slashdot</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ghostery found 1 web bug on Slashdot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ghostery found 1 web bug on Slashdot</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28193393</id>
	<title>Re:We need to take care of our privacy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244025900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regarding 2) - huh? No, it does not break OpenID. I'm using OpenID quite regularly, and NoScript doesn't interfere with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regarding 2 ) - huh ?
No , it does not break OpenID .
I 'm using OpenID quite regularly , and NoScript does n't interfere with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regarding 2) - huh?
No, it does not break OpenID.
I'm using OpenID quite regularly, and NoScript doesn't interfere with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192337</id>
	<title>Even Slash-dot now REQUIRES JS and sends Google JS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243969800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe someone mentioned this.  But I didn't see it in the threads yet.</p><p>This last week our very host SLASH\_dot started REQUIRING JS for slashdot.org and fsdn.com in order to see any threads posted.  AND fsdn "transfers information" from Google-Analytics while loading even the headlines page.</p><p>Obviously those of you who protest the slimiest of tactics are giving this site a pass when they do NOT deserve it.  Slash-dot must be getting something including $ fro Google for the information they are stealing from us.</p><p>And Slash doesn't even say JS needed.  All you get is a message "Error from upstream server"  Unless you allow JS.</p><p>Disappointingly even adding google-analytics to my firewall block list does not seem to stop the "transfer of information" from google by fsdn.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe someone mentioned this .
But I did n't see it in the threads yet.This last week our very host SLASH \ _dot started REQUIRING JS for slashdot.org and fsdn.com in order to see any threads posted .
AND fsdn " transfers information " from Google-Analytics while loading even the headlines page.Obviously those of you who protest the slimiest of tactics are giving this site a pass when they do NOT deserve it .
Slash-dot must be getting something including $ fro Google for the information they are stealing from us.And Slash does n't even say JS needed .
All you get is a message " Error from upstream server " Unless you allow JS.Disappointingly even adding google-analytics to my firewall block list does not seem to stop the " transfer of information " from google by fsdn .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe someone mentioned this.
But I didn't see it in the threads yet.This last week our very host SLASH\_dot started REQUIRING JS for slashdot.org and fsdn.com in order to see any threads posted.
AND fsdn "transfers information" from Google-Analytics while loading even the headlines page.Obviously those of you who protest the slimiest of tactics are giving this site a pass when they do NOT deserve it.
Slash-dot must be getting something including $ fro Google for the information they are stealing from us.And Slash doesn't even say JS needed.
All you get is a message "Error from upstream server"  Unless you allow JS.Disappointingly even adding google-analytics to my firewall block list does not seem to stop the "transfer of information" from google by fsdn.
:(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28195135</id>
	<title>Related</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1244041140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a related discussion of topics of Privacy on the web, including all original research, please see:</p><p>The Privacy Log: <a href="http://privacylog.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com">http://privacylog.blogspot.com/</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a related discussion of topics of Privacy on the web , including all original research , please see : The Privacy Log : http : //privacylog.blogspot.com/ [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a related discussion of topics of Privacy on the web, including all original research, please see:The Privacy Log: http://privacylog.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190925</id>
	<title>We need to take care of our privacy.</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1243955220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>NoScript can stop most of the scripts running in the background when you visit a web page.<br>https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/722</htmltext>
<tokenext>NoScript can stop most of the scripts running in the background when you visit a web page.https : //addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/722</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NoScript can stop most of the scripts running in the background when you visit a web page.https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/722</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191155</id>
	<title>Lie, cheat and steal.  Why keep acting surprised?</title>
	<author>swb</author>
	<datestamp>1243957740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do we keep having studies like this?  It's like having more studies to prove that gravity will cause a rock to drop on the ground; it's pretty well understood without having to have yet another study remind us that given even the slightest chance to lie, cheat or steal, corporations will willingly and vigorously lie, cheat and steal.</p><p>While I'm not "old" I am, at 42, at the point where I just tune out anything a corporation tells me.  It's all bullshit.  All of it.  And I often ask myself why I don't make every attempt to rip them off as often and as completely as I can --  just fuck off being honest, all you get is ripped off anyway.  There is no "fair" or "middle ground", it's just "how badly do you want to get lied to/cheated/ripped off?"</p><p>In spite of this and in spite of my equally strong cynicism that government can "fix" this, why don't we treat these corporate fucks properly?</p><p>For so many of these frauds, jail just isn't good enough, or it doesn't provide the right life lesson.  These people need to know just exactly what the shit end of the stick feels like.  Here's a suitable punishment for corporate malfeasance:</p><p>1) Corporate thief *and* immediate family, including wives divorced after the initiation of fraud, stripped of ALL personal possessions, property, real estate and financial assets.  YOU MAY NOT EVER PROFIT FROM YOUR CRIME NOR ENRICH YOUR FAMILY.  YOU HAVE LOST EVERYTHING.  FOREVER.</p><p>2) Forced to live a residence in a neighborhood with at least 50\% of the population at or below the poverty line.  POVERTY SUCKS.</p><p>3) All family members required to work at a job which pays no more than 2x the poverty wage for whatever size family they consist.   Any money earned over this amount is forfeited.  YOU WILL NEVER GET AHEAD OR EVEN CATCH UP.</p><p>4) No financial or material support of any kind from the outside, including support in-kind (free rent, forgiven debt, etc).  AND NOBODY WILL HELP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do we keep having studies like this ?
It 's like having more studies to prove that gravity will cause a rock to drop on the ground ; it 's pretty well understood without having to have yet another study remind us that given even the slightest chance to lie , cheat or steal , corporations will willingly and vigorously lie , cheat and steal.While I 'm not " old " I am , at 42 , at the point where I just tune out anything a corporation tells me .
It 's all bullshit .
All of it .
And I often ask myself why I do n't make every attempt to rip them off as often and as completely as I can -- just fuck off being honest , all you get is ripped off anyway .
There is no " fair " or " middle ground " , it 's just " how badly do you want to get lied to/cheated/ripped off ?
" In spite of this and in spite of my equally strong cynicism that government can " fix " this , why do n't we treat these corporate fucks properly ? For so many of these frauds , jail just is n't good enough , or it does n't provide the right life lesson .
These people need to know just exactly what the shit end of the stick feels like .
Here 's a suitable punishment for corporate malfeasance : 1 ) Corporate thief * and * immediate family , including wives divorced after the initiation of fraud , stripped of ALL personal possessions , property , real estate and financial assets .
YOU MAY NOT EVER PROFIT FROM YOUR CRIME NOR ENRICH YOUR FAMILY .
YOU HAVE LOST EVERYTHING .
FOREVER.2 ) Forced to live a residence in a neighborhood with at least 50 \ % of the population at or below the poverty line .
POVERTY SUCKS.3 ) All family members required to work at a job which pays no more than 2x the poverty wage for whatever size family they consist .
Any money earned over this amount is forfeited .
YOU WILL NEVER GET AHEAD OR EVEN CATCH UP.4 ) No financial or material support of any kind from the outside , including support in-kind ( free rent , forgiven debt , etc ) .
AND NOBODY WILL HELP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do we keep having studies like this?
It's like having more studies to prove that gravity will cause a rock to drop on the ground; it's pretty well understood without having to have yet another study remind us that given even the slightest chance to lie, cheat or steal, corporations will willingly and vigorously lie, cheat and steal.While I'm not "old" I am, at 42, at the point where I just tune out anything a corporation tells me.
It's all bullshit.
All of it.
And I often ask myself why I don't make every attempt to rip them off as often and as completely as I can --  just fuck off being honest, all you get is ripped off anyway.
There is no "fair" or "middle ground", it's just "how badly do you want to get lied to/cheated/ripped off?
"In spite of this and in spite of my equally strong cynicism that government can "fix" this, why don't we treat these corporate fucks properly?For so many of these frauds, jail just isn't good enough, or it doesn't provide the right life lesson.
These people need to know just exactly what the shit end of the stick feels like.
Here's a suitable punishment for corporate malfeasance:1) Corporate thief *and* immediate family, including wives divorced after the initiation of fraud, stripped of ALL personal possessions, property, real estate and financial assets.
YOU MAY NOT EVER PROFIT FROM YOUR CRIME NOR ENRICH YOUR FAMILY.
YOU HAVE LOST EVERYTHING.
FOREVER.2) Forced to live a residence in a neighborhood with at least 50\% of the population at or below the poverty line.
POVERTY SUCKS.3) All family members required to work at a job which pays no more than 2x the poverty wage for whatever size family they consist.
Any money earned over this amount is forfeited.
YOU WILL NEVER GET AHEAD OR EVEN CATCH UP.4) No financial or material support of any kind from the outside, including support in-kind (free rent, forgiven debt, etc).
AND NOBODY WILL HELP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28199201</id>
	<title>Re:Guilty as charged</title>
	<author>coolsnowmen</author>
	<datestamp>1244058180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You do realize this already happens right?  And stupid people play into it.  Those retarded 'club' cards for every freaking grocery store, sporting goods store, (insert store type here) store.  </p></div><p>Every place I know uses a phone number optionally.  Just make one up until it works.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize this already happens right ?
And stupid people play into it .
Those retarded 'club ' cards for every freaking grocery store , sporting goods store , ( insert store type here ) store .
Every place I know uses a phone number optionally .
Just make one up until it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize this already happens right?
And stupid people play into it.
Those retarded 'club' cards for every freaking grocery store, sporting goods store, (insert store type here) store.
Every place I know uses a phone number optionally.
Just make one up until it works.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191871</id>
	<title>Re:Lie, cheat and steal. Why keep acting surprised</title>
	<author>Jimmy\_B</author>
	<datestamp>1243963980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, but the US Constitution expressly prohibits extending punishment for crimes onto family members. The most you could get is forfeiture of assets which a prosecutor could prove constituted stolen goods, and that wouldn't be nearly everything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but the US Constitution expressly prohibits extending punishment for crimes onto family members .
The most you could get is forfeiture of assets which a prosecutor could prove constituted stolen goods , and that would n't be nearly everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but the US Constitution expressly prohibits extending punishment for crimes onto family members.
The most you could get is forfeiture of assets which a prosecutor could prove constituted stolen goods, and that wouldn't be nearly everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191817</id>
	<title>Re:Guilty as charged</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1243963560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize this already happens right?  And stupid people play into it.  Those retarded 'club' cards for every freaking grocery store, sporting goods store, (insert store type here) store.  The price you see on the label is always the 'club' price, which you pay more if you don't use their 'club' card.  They send you directed advertisements in the mail and design the store displays and advertisements to direct you to the place in the store where they think they can upsell you the most.</p><p>The only people turning paranoid are geeks too stupid to realize they have been able to do this for years and it doesn't just happen on the Internet.  'Web bugs' are nothing new, you've just been too dumb to notice them in the past.</p><p>'People' don't CARE if they are tracked.  Slashdotters freak out about it.  If people gave a damn they wouldn't be so happy to sign up for those cards.  They KNOW they are being tracked cause most of them happily send you reports regularly telling you what you've spent your money on.</p><p>You guys need to pull your eyes off the monitor for a few minutes and stop thinking that everything on the Internet is new.  Most of it isn't, not be a long shot, its just a variation on some scam from else where.</p><p>If you actually were worried about being tracked you'd use cash and never buy anything off the Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize this already happens right ?
And stupid people play into it .
Those retarded 'club ' cards for every freaking grocery store , sporting goods store , ( insert store type here ) store .
The price you see on the label is always the 'club ' price , which you pay more if you do n't use their 'club ' card .
They send you directed advertisements in the mail and design the store displays and advertisements to direct you to the place in the store where they think they can upsell you the most.The only people turning paranoid are geeks too stupid to realize they have been able to do this for years and it does n't just happen on the Internet .
'Web bugs ' are nothing new , you 've just been too dumb to notice them in the past .
'People ' do n't CARE if they are tracked .
Slashdotters freak out about it .
If people gave a damn they would n't be so happy to sign up for those cards .
They KNOW they are being tracked cause most of them happily send you reports regularly telling you what you 've spent your money on.You guys need to pull your eyes off the monitor for a few minutes and stop thinking that everything on the Internet is new .
Most of it is n't , not be a long shot , its just a variation on some scam from else where.If you actually were worried about being tracked you 'd use cash and never buy anything off the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize this already happens right?
And stupid people play into it.
Those retarded 'club' cards for every freaking grocery store, sporting goods store, (insert store type here) store.
The price you see on the label is always the 'club' price, which you pay more if you don't use their 'club' card.
They send you directed advertisements in the mail and design the store displays and advertisements to direct you to the place in the store where they think they can upsell you the most.The only people turning paranoid are geeks too stupid to realize they have been able to do this for years and it doesn't just happen on the Internet.
'Web bugs' are nothing new, you've just been too dumb to notice them in the past.
'People' don't CARE if they are tracked.
Slashdotters freak out about it.
If people gave a damn they wouldn't be so happy to sign up for those cards.
They KNOW they are being tracked cause most of them happily send you reports regularly telling you what you've spent your money on.You guys need to pull your eyes off the monitor for a few minutes and stop thinking that everything on the Internet is new.
Most of it isn't, not be a long shot, its just a variation on some scam from else where.If you actually were worried about being tracked you'd use cash and never buy anything off the Internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28197927</id>
	<title>Re:We need to take care of our privacy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244052600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ever since the author of NoScript decided to turn it into malware and attack my computer, I stopped using it. Any alternatives?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever since the author of NoScript decided to turn it into malware and attack my computer , I stopped using it .
Any alternatives ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever since the author of NoScript decided to turn it into malware and attack my computer, I stopped using it.
Any alternatives?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191049</id>
	<title>Three cheers for the students</title>
	<author>Presto Vivace</author>
	<datestamp>1243956660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>very public spirited of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>very public spirited of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>very public spirited of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192865</id>
	<title>Not true &amp; especially 4 ANY "registered user"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244062380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"'People' don't CARE if they are tracked. Slashdotters freak out about it."</b> - by BitZtream (692029) on Wednesday June 03, @12:26AM (#28191817)</p></div><p>That's NOT true, and yes, even in YOUR individual case... why?</p><p>Well, <b>since you are a "registered user" here, you are FAR MORE EASILY TRACKED than I am in my using an "A/C" account</b> (clicking on your username alone yields me an incredible wealth of information about you alone on this website in your post comments history &amp; more, for instance).</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; That's the ONLY reason(s) I do not become a registered user here in fact, but it is what I feel is a very good reason not to become one in fact... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" 'People ' do n't CARE if they are tracked .
Slashdotters freak out about it .
" - by BitZtream ( 692029 ) on Wednesday June 03 , @ 12 : 26AM ( # 28191817 ) That 's NOT true , and yes , even in YOUR individual case... why ? Well , since you are a " registered user " here , you are FAR MORE EASILY TRACKED than I am in my using an " A/C " account ( clicking on your username alone yields me an incredible wealth of information about you alone on this website in your post comments history &amp; more , for instance ) .APKP.S. = &gt; That 's the ONLY reason ( s ) I do not become a registered user here in fact , but it is what I feel is a very good reason not to become one in fact... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"'People' don't CARE if they are tracked.
Slashdotters freak out about it.
" - by BitZtream (692029) on Wednesday June 03, @12:26AM (#28191817)That's NOT true, and yes, even in YOUR individual case... why?Well, since you are a "registered user" here, you are FAR MORE EASILY TRACKED than I am in my using an "A/C" account (clicking on your username alone yields me an incredible wealth of information about you alone on this website in your post comments history &amp; more, for instance).APKP.S.=&gt; That's the ONLY reason(s) I do not become a registered user here in fact, but it is what I feel is a very good reason not to become one in fact... apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191829</id>
	<title>Re:We need to take care of our privacy.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1243963680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, thats all fine and good, but contrary to popular belief no script doesn't prevent them from starting, sometimes it does, but not always, it is entirely possible for them to load and have you tracked BEFORE noscript has a chance to stop it.</p><p>You noscript people rant and rave about how awesome it is and have absolutely no clue how it works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , thats all fine and good , but contrary to popular belief no script does n't prevent them from starting , sometimes it does , but not always , it is entirely possible for them to load and have you tracked BEFORE noscript has a chance to stop it.You noscript people rant and rave about how awesome it is and have absolutely no clue how it works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, thats all fine and good, but contrary to popular belief no script doesn't prevent them from starting, sometimes it does, but not always, it is entirely possible for them to load and have you tracked BEFORE noscript has a chance to stop it.You noscript people rant and rave about how awesome it is and have absolutely no clue how it works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28193311</id>
	<title>I Try To Do Both</title>
	<author>Velska1</author>
	<datestamp>1244025000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As twostix said, yes, we do have the right to complain. It may not help, but we can complain.</p><p>I look at it this way: I do what I can, and then complain with the idea that I may not be the only one, who has noticed the problem. And there is an outside chance that someone will do something if enough people speak up.</p><p>To stay on the subject of doing something, we can add a filter [http://www.google-analytics.com/*] (the square brackets are here just to stop<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. from treating that as a link) to Adblock Plus, and the browser won't be telling google that we're looking at this page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As twostix said , yes , we do have the right to complain .
It may not help , but we can complain.I look at it this way : I do what I can , and then complain with the idea that I may not be the only one , who has noticed the problem .
And there is an outside chance that someone will do something if enough people speak up.To stay on the subject of doing something , we can add a filter [ http : //www.google-analytics.com/ * ] ( the square brackets are here just to stop / .
from treating that as a link ) to Adblock Plus , and the browser wo n't be telling google that we 're looking at this page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As twostix said, yes, we do have the right to complain.
It may not help, but we can complain.I look at it this way: I do what I can, and then complain with the idea that I may not be the only one, who has noticed the problem.
And there is an outside chance that someone will do something if enough people speak up.To stay on the subject of doing something, we can add a filter [http://www.google-analytics.com/*] (the square brackets are here just to stop /.
from treating that as a link) to Adblock Plus, and the browser won't be telling google that we're looking at this page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191725</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28195577</id>
	<title>Re:Guilty as charged</title>
	<author>Aram Fingal</author>
	<datestamp>1244043060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're right but storing personal info in the cookie itself isn't the way it's normally done. More often, they store something like visitor#42383645934568125 which is a database key. Your personal info is in their database and not in the cookie. Part of the problem with web beacons is that they effectively allow different sites to share the same database key. This wasn't supposed to happen with cookies which are restricted to being read back only by the same site that set them in the first place. Web beacons get around this limitation by loading a portion of the site which you are visiting, even something as small as a one pixel graphic, from a common advertising agency site. Some of these advertising sites are backed by huge clusters and able to serve a bit of content to a huge percentage of sites on the internet. That's what the graphs about Google's reach are explaining.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right but storing personal info in the cookie itself is n't the way it 's normally done .
More often , they store something like visitor # 42383645934568125 which is a database key .
Your personal info is in their database and not in the cookie .
Part of the problem with web beacons is that they effectively allow different sites to share the same database key .
This was n't supposed to happen with cookies which are restricted to being read back only by the same site that set them in the first place .
Web beacons get around this limitation by loading a portion of the site which you are visiting , even something as small as a one pixel graphic , from a common advertising agency site .
Some of these advertising sites are backed by huge clusters and able to serve a bit of content to a huge percentage of sites on the internet .
That 's what the graphs about Google 's reach are explaining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right but storing personal info in the cookie itself isn't the way it's normally done.
More often, they store something like visitor#42383645934568125 which is a database key.
Your personal info is in their database and not in the cookie.
Part of the problem with web beacons is that they effectively allow different sites to share the same database key.
This wasn't supposed to happen with cookies which are restricted to being read back only by the same site that set them in the first place.
Web beacons get around this limitation by loading a portion of the site which you are visiting, even something as small as a one pixel graphic, from a common advertising agency site.
Some of these advertising sites are backed by huge clusters and able to serve a bit of content to a huge percentage of sites on the internet.
That's what the graphs about Google's reach are explaining.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191515</id>
	<title>Re:We need to take care of our privacy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243960560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer yesscript https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4922</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer yesscript https : //addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4922</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer yesscript https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4922</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190685</id>
	<title>Guilty as charged</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243953600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. Trackers such as Google Analytics and more have been around for years. But now it's getting even worse with the flurry of URL shorteners. Not only can't you see what the real URL points to, its main purpose is to track, track, track.</p><p>Personally, I don't believe it makes sense to have a web completely free of "web bugs". I'd rather have some pretty strong laws, along the lines of the presumption of innocence, so that anything collected about you can't possibly be used against you if it was obtained "by chance". That would be a start.</p><p>--<br>escape the corporate world, code <a href="http://fairsoftware.net/" title="fairsoftware.net">for fun and profit</a> [fairsoftware.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
Trackers such as Google Analytics and more have been around for years .
But now it 's getting even worse with the flurry of URL shorteners .
Not only ca n't you see what the real URL points to , its main purpose is to track , track , track.Personally , I do n't believe it makes sense to have a web completely free of " web bugs " .
I 'd rather have some pretty strong laws , along the lines of the presumption of innocence , so that anything collected about you ca n't possibly be used against you if it was obtained " by chance " .
That would be a start.--escape the corporate world , code for fun and profit [ fairsoftware.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
Trackers such as Google Analytics and more have been around for years.
But now it's getting even worse with the flurry of URL shorteners.
Not only can't you see what the real URL points to, its main purpose is to track, track, track.Personally, I don't believe it makes sense to have a web completely free of "web bugs".
I'd rather have some pretty strong laws, along the lines of the presumption of innocence, so that anything collected about you can't possibly be used against you if it was obtained "by chance".
That would be a start.--escape the corporate world, code for fun and profit [fairsoftware.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28196729</id>
	<title>So quit using the web</title>
	<author>Sir Holo</author>
	<datestamp>1244047980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Web sites<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... allow third parties to place Web bugs on their sites<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and share with corporate 'affiliates.'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  Bank of America<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... has more than 2,300 affiliates &#226;" and users cannot learn their identities.</p></div><p>So quit using their web site and go back to paper bill-paying.<br>
<br>
Remember the reason you started paying bills via the web?  It was fast and easy.  Is it still?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Web sites ... allow third parties to place Web bugs on their sites ... and share with corporate 'affiliates .
' ... Bank of America ... has more than 2,300 affiliates   " and users can not learn their identities.So quit using their web site and go back to paper bill-paying .
Remember the reason you started paying bills via the web ?
It was fast and easy .
Is it still ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web sites ... allow third parties to place Web bugs on their sites ... and share with corporate 'affiliates.
' ...  Bank of America ... has more than 2,300 affiliates â" and users cannot learn their identities.So quit using their web site and go back to paper bill-paying.
Remember the reason you started paying bills via the web?
It was fast and easy.
Is it still?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190827</id>
	<title>Re:Guilty as charged</title>
	<author>orngjce223</author>
	<datestamp>1243954380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the thing.  People don't *want* to be tracked across websites.  (Just like they don't *want* to see ads at all... but I digress.)  The equivalent is the local store providing a small button-sticker, without your permission, at the door that not only lets their associates direct you to sections you might actually be interested in, but track you via GPS into other stores to see what you buy.  And I mean you can take them off later (delete the cookies and all that), but then every other store provides the exact same sticker and some require you to present the sticker at every counter for service.  It's something that a paranoid would probably say already happens, but the fact is, that this is turning us *all* paranoid.  I don't like being paranoid.</p><p>On the other hand, Mr. President Obama has kept quiet on privacy, so we don't even know what his stances are on this issue...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the thing .
People do n't * want * to be tracked across websites .
( Just like they do n't * want * to see ads at all... but I digress .
) The equivalent is the local store providing a small button-sticker , without your permission , at the door that not only lets their associates direct you to sections you might actually be interested in , but track you via GPS into other stores to see what you buy .
And I mean you can take them off later ( delete the cookies and all that ) , but then every other store provides the exact same sticker and some require you to present the sticker at every counter for service .
It 's something that a paranoid would probably say already happens , but the fact is , that this is turning us * all * paranoid .
I do n't like being paranoid.On the other hand , Mr. President Obama has kept quiet on privacy , so we do n't even know what his stances are on this issue.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the thing.
People don't *want* to be tracked across websites.
(Just like they don't *want* to see ads at all... but I digress.
)  The equivalent is the local store providing a small button-sticker, without your permission, at the door that not only lets their associates direct you to sections you might actually be interested in, but track you via GPS into other stores to see what you buy.
And I mean you can take them off later (delete the cookies and all that), but then every other store provides the exact same sticker and some require you to present the sticker at every counter for service.
It's something that a paranoid would probably say already happens, but the fact is, that this is turning us *all* paranoid.
I don't like being paranoid.On the other hand, Mr. President Obama has kept quiet on privacy, so we don't even know what his stances are on this issue...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28197903</id>
	<title>Re:Guilty as charged</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1244052480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They send you directed advertisements in the mail</p></div><p>If one was foolish enough to give them a real address, or any address at all.</p><p>I once moved into an apartment where they had the grocery store club card attached to the keys, left behind from the previous tenant. That card may have even passed through the hands of many different tenants, blurring their data collection. From the store's point of view, the owner of the card was severely changing purchase habits frequently.</p><p>Maybe we should all swap grocery store cards regularly to keep the benefits while anonymizing/disrupting the data collection?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They send you directed advertisements in the mailIf one was foolish enough to give them a real address , or any address at all.I once moved into an apartment where they had the grocery store club card attached to the keys , left behind from the previous tenant .
That card may have even passed through the hands of many different tenants , blurring their data collection .
From the store 's point of view , the owner of the card was severely changing purchase habits frequently.Maybe we should all swap grocery store cards regularly to keep the benefits while anonymizing/disrupting the data collection ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They send you directed advertisements in the mailIf one was foolish enough to give them a real address, or any address at all.I once moved into an apartment where they had the grocery store club card attached to the keys, left behind from the previous tenant.
That card may have even passed through the hands of many different tenants, blurring their data collection.
From the store's point of view, the owner of the card was severely changing purchase habits frequently.Maybe we should all swap grocery store cards regularly to keep the benefits while anonymizing/disrupting the data collection?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28203415</id>
	<title>Re:We need to take care of our privacy.</title>
	<author>Civil\_Disobedient</author>
	<datestamp>1244031660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NoScript is completely ineffectual against even passably mediocre tracking technologies.  I mean, I can think of at least a couple of ways to bypass NoScript without breaking a mental sweat.</p><p>Let's see...</p><p>Request comes to web server.  Web server gets IP address, referrer (<i>or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP\_referrer" title="wikipedia.org">referer</a> [wikipedia.org] if you're the W3C</i>).  That immediately goes into a database, along with a unique GUID that then gets appended as a variable to every link on my page.  This can either be done GET-style as a URL parameter...</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/~Civil\_Disobedient/?12345" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/~Civil\_Disobedient/?12345</a> [slashdot.org]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...or, I can just put it as part of the actual link, like this:</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/12345/~Civil\_Disobedient/" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/12345/~Civil\_Disobedient/</a> [slashdot.org]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and then <a href="http://httpd.apache.org/docs/1.3/mod/mod\_rewrite.html" title="apache.org">mod\_rewrite</a> [apache.org] it to the first form.  Or I could do this just as easily:</p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/12345~Civil\_Disobedient/" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/12345~Civil\_Disobedient/</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>There's really nothing that can be done to stop it, but this shouldn't make you any more paranoid than saying there's nothing you can do to stop store owners from memorizing faces and purchases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NoScript is completely ineffectual against even passably mediocre tracking technologies .
I mean , I can think of at least a couple of ways to bypass NoScript without breaking a mental sweat.Let 's see...Request comes to web server .
Web server gets IP address , referrer ( or referer [ wikipedia.org ] if you 're the W3C ) .
That immediately goes into a database , along with a unique GUID that then gets appended as a variable to every link on my page .
This can either be done GET-style as a URL parameter...http : //slashdot.org/ ~ Civil \ _Disobedient/ ? 12345 [ slashdot.org ] ...or , I can just put it as part of the actual link , like this : http : //slashdot.org/12345/ ~ Civil \ _Disobedient/ [ slashdot.org ] ...and then mod \ _rewrite [ apache.org ] it to the first form .
Or I could do this just as easily : http : //slashdot.org/12345 ~ Civil \ _Disobedient/ [ slashdot.org ] There 's really nothing that can be done to stop it , but this should n't make you any more paranoid than saying there 's nothing you can do to stop store owners from memorizing faces and purchases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NoScript is completely ineffectual against even passably mediocre tracking technologies.
I mean, I can think of at least a couple of ways to bypass NoScript without breaking a mental sweat.Let's see...Request comes to web server.
Web server gets IP address, referrer (or referer [wikipedia.org] if you're the W3C).
That immediately goes into a database, along with a unique GUID that then gets appended as a variable to every link on my page.
This can either be done GET-style as a URL parameter...http://slashdot.org/~Civil\_Disobedient/?12345 [slashdot.org] ...or, I can just put it as part of the actual link, like this:http://slashdot.org/12345/~Civil\_Disobedient/ [slashdot.org] ...and then mod\_rewrite [apache.org] it to the first form.
Or I could do this just as easily:http://slashdot.org/12345~Civil\_Disobedient/ [slashdot.org]There's really nothing that can be done to stop it, but this shouldn't make you any more paranoid than saying there's nothing you can do to stop store owners from memorizing faces and purchases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191047</id>
	<title>Re:We need to take care of our privacy.</title>
	<author>spottedkangaroo</author>
	<datestamp>1243956600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are three main strikes against noscript though... 1) it's irritating and doesn't necessarily protect against 1x1 pixel or iframe attacks anyway; 2) it sucks and breaks things like OpenID, which are necessarily cross site scripting; 3) the guy's a total fuck head (see adblock).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are three main strikes against noscript though... 1 ) it 's irritating and does n't necessarily protect against 1x1 pixel or iframe attacks anyway ; 2 ) it sucks and breaks things like OpenID , which are necessarily cross site scripting ; 3 ) the guy 's a total fuck head ( see adblock ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are three main strikes against noscript though... 1) it's irritating and doesn't necessarily protect against 1x1 pixel or iframe attacks anyway; 2) it sucks and breaks things like OpenID, which are necessarily cross site scripting; 3) the guy's a total fuck head (see adblock).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28196935</id>
	<title>Not trying to troll or flame, but ...</title>
	<author>ubrgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1244048760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great. A wonderful, in-depth analytical piece.  But so what? Not like anything's going to come of it. Anyone who has ever gotten "legitimate" spam (i.e. not Viagra, etc. but from real businesses) or junk snail mail knows this is going on.  Hell, politicians know it's going on. But it's not going to change. This isn't an Upton Sinclair piece that will change the meat-packing industry. Let's face facts: This crap won't ever change. And even if, through some magic means, it does, the damage has been done - All your data are belong to them already.  Sorry. I'm a giant cynic. But I think I'm also a realist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great .
A wonderful , in-depth analytical piece .
But so what ?
Not like anything 's going to come of it .
Anyone who has ever gotten " legitimate " spam ( i.e .
not Viagra , etc .
but from real businesses ) or junk snail mail knows this is going on .
Hell , politicians know it 's going on .
But it 's not going to change .
This is n't an Upton Sinclair piece that will change the meat-packing industry .
Let 's face facts : This crap wo n't ever change .
And even if , through some magic means , it does , the damage has been done - All your data are belong to them already .
Sorry. I 'm a giant cynic .
But I think I 'm also a realist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great.
A wonderful, in-depth analytical piece.
But so what?
Not like anything's going to come of it.
Anyone who has ever gotten "legitimate" spam (i.e.
not Viagra, etc.
but from real businesses) or junk snail mail knows this is going on.
Hell, politicians know it's going on.
But it's not going to change.
This isn't an Upton Sinclair piece that will change the meat-packing industry.
Let's face facts: This crap won't ever change.
And even if, through some magic means, it does, the damage has been done - All your data are belong to them already.
Sorry. I'm a giant cynic.
But I think I'm also a realist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191241</id>
	<title>This is new?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243958220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ADVERTISERS are Anti-Privacy People!!!  They would create massive databases tracking every single man woman and child on the planet if they could and many are still working on that very thing.</p><p>Google is an advertiser.  When you break it down, Google's motivation is making money by selling advertisements in various forms and means.</p><p>Here's other news: Advertising WORKS!!!  They wouldn't do all this if it didn't yield results.  And that will never change.  Our consumer culture is so developed that people can't imagine any other way of seeing the world they live in.</p><p>And here's an interesting aside -- according to my younger brother who recently went through law enforcement training informed the family of an interesting bit of trivia.  He told us that the code word for "mentally retarded person" is "CONSUMER."  He was not joking.  Let that settle in...  There are so many different areas where "consumer" is used to describe people and it makes you think doesn't it?  We're all the brainless pawns in their business strategies and plans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ADVERTISERS are Anti-Privacy People ! ! !
They would create massive databases tracking every single man woman and child on the planet if they could and many are still working on that very thing.Google is an advertiser .
When you break it down , Google 's motivation is making money by selling advertisements in various forms and means.Here 's other news : Advertising WORKS ! ! !
They would n't do all this if it did n't yield results .
And that will never change .
Our consumer culture is so developed that people ca n't imagine any other way of seeing the world they live in.And here 's an interesting aside -- according to my younger brother who recently went through law enforcement training informed the family of an interesting bit of trivia .
He told us that the code word for " mentally retarded person " is " CONSUMER .
" He was not joking .
Let that settle in... There are so many different areas where " consumer " is used to describe people and it makes you think does n't it ?
We 're all the brainless pawns in their business strategies and plans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ADVERTISERS are Anti-Privacy People!!!
They would create massive databases tracking every single man woman and child on the planet if they could and many are still working on that very thing.Google is an advertiser.
When you break it down, Google's motivation is making money by selling advertisements in various forms and means.Here's other news: Advertising WORKS!!!
They wouldn't do all this if it didn't yield results.
And that will never change.
Our consumer culture is so developed that people can't imagine any other way of seeing the world they live in.And here's an interesting aside -- according to my younger brother who recently went through law enforcement training informed the family of an interesting bit of trivia.
He told us that the code word for "mentally retarded person" is "CONSUMER.
"  He was not joking.
Let that settle in...  There are so many different areas where "consumer" is used to describe people and it makes you think doesn't it?
We're all the brainless pawns in their business strategies and plans.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28199329</id>
	<title>Re:We need to take care of our privacy.</title>
	<author>AnalPerfume</author>
	<datestamp>1244058840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"the guy's a total fuck head (see adblock)."<br><br>I see you're the forgiving sort. When someone makes a mistake, owns up to the mistake after the backlash hits, fixes it and apologizes, you do the honorable thing and condemn him as a fuckhead. Well done, do you feel better now? Out of curiosity, did you learn this forgiving compassionate approach from the Church?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" the guy 's a total fuck head ( see adblock ) .
" I see you 're the forgiving sort .
When someone makes a mistake , owns up to the mistake after the backlash hits , fixes it and apologizes , you do the honorable thing and condemn him as a fuckhead .
Well done , do you feel better now ?
Out of curiosity , did you learn this forgiving compassionate approach from the Church ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"the guy's a total fuck head (see adblock).
"I see you're the forgiving sort.
When someone makes a mistake, owns up to the mistake after the backlash hits, fixes it and apologizes, you do the honorable thing and condemn him as a fuckhead.
Well done, do you feel better now?
Out of curiosity, did you learn this forgiving compassionate approach from the Church?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192553</id>
	<title>Re:Defective by design</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243972020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how is this marked troll?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how is this marked troll ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how is this marked troll?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28209393</id>
	<title>Re:We need to take care of our privacy.</title>
	<author>AnalPerfume</author>
	<datestamp>1244129400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He turned it into malware and attacked your computer? Wow, you must be speshul.<br><br>Meanwhile back at reality, he overstepped his boundaries and modified ABP to exempt his sites from the blocklist so adverts would show, a furore erupted and he released an update removing that change and apologized. Unless there's some other story you could point to and give us links for, this does NOT constitute either "malware" and it does NOT "attack anyones computer".<br><br>If you're looking for alternatives, first I'd suggest you look up some definitions for malware, it seems to be a word you don't understand and therefor could easily fall victim to in your search for purity. Good luck on that, meanwhile most of us grown ups will stick to NoScript and ABP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>He turned it into malware and attacked your computer ?
Wow , you must be speshul.Meanwhile back at reality , he overstepped his boundaries and modified ABP to exempt his sites from the blocklist so adverts would show , a furore erupted and he released an update removing that change and apologized .
Unless there 's some other story you could point to and give us links for , this does NOT constitute either " malware " and it does NOT " attack anyones computer " .If you 're looking for alternatives , first I 'd suggest you look up some definitions for malware , it seems to be a word you do n't understand and therefor could easily fall victim to in your search for purity .
Good luck on that , meanwhile most of us grown ups will stick to NoScript and ABP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He turned it into malware and attacked your computer?
Wow, you must be speshul.Meanwhile back at reality, he overstepped his boundaries and modified ABP to exempt his sites from the blocklist so adverts would show, a furore erupted and he released an update removing that change and apologized.
Unless there's some other story you could point to and give us links for, this does NOT constitute either "malware" and it does NOT "attack anyones computer".If you're looking for alternatives, first I'd suggest you look up some definitions for malware, it seems to be a word you don't understand and therefor could easily fall victim to in your search for purity.
Good luck on that, meanwhile most of us grown ups will stick to NoScript and ABP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28197927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28193735</id>
	<title>Re:We need to take care of our privacy.</title>
	<author>NickFortune</author>
	<datestamp>1244031000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>no script doesn't prevent them from starting, sometimes it does, but not always, it is entirely possible for them to load and have you tracked BEFORE noscript has a chance to stop it.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Which is one reason most the major offenders are disabled in my hosts file.
</p><blockquote><div><p>You noscript people rant and rave about how awesome it is and have absolutely no clue how it works.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
What's the matter? Did NoScript steal your lunch money or something?
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>no script does n't prevent them from starting , sometimes it does , but not always , it is entirely possible for them to load and have you tracked BEFORE noscript has a chance to stop it .
Which is one reason most the major offenders are disabled in my hosts file .
You noscript people rant and rave about how awesome it is and have absolutely no clue how it works .
What 's the matter ?
Did NoScript steal your lunch money or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no script doesn't prevent them from starting, sometimes it does, but not always, it is entirely possible for them to load and have you tracked BEFORE noscript has a chance to stop it.
Which is one reason most the major offenders are disabled in my hosts file.
You noscript people rant and rave about how awesome it is and have absolutely no clue how it works.
What's the matter?
Did NoScript steal your lunch money or something?

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191829</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191635</id>
	<title>Re:We need to take care of our privacy.</title>
	<author>brentonboy</author>
	<datestamp>1243961940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>noscript has lost my trust forever and i won't ever use it again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>noscript has lost my trust forever and i wo n't ever use it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>noscript has lost my trust forever and i won't ever use it again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192217</id>
	<title>If you believe in rebirth, it is called Africa</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243968420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... the punishment that you talk of.</p><p>Only the ignorant continue cheating, because tomorrow is your day of getting cheated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the punishment that you talk of.Only the ignorant continue cheating , because tomorrow is your day of getting cheated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the punishment that you talk of.Only the ignorant continue cheating, because tomorrow is your day of getting cheated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28193013</id>
	<title>How Did You Know?</title>
	<author>Velska1</author>
	<datestamp>1244020920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How in hell did you know so well what my life was like for 15 years? Well, still is, but #4 isn't true for us now...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How in hell did you know so well what my life was like for 15 years ?
Well , still is , but # 4 is n't true for us now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How in hell did you know so well what my life was like for 15 years?
Well, still is, but #4 isn't true for us now...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191155</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190755</id>
	<title>It's the INTERNET for crying out lud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243953960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the fuck did you expect?  If you want "privacy", stay home.  Oh, wait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the fuck did you expect ?
If you want " privacy " , stay home .
Oh , wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the fuck did you expect?
If you want "privacy", stay home.
Oh, wait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192973</id>
	<title>Stupidity...</title>
	<author>Velska1</author>
	<datestamp>1244020440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'People' don't CARE if they are tracked.</p></div><p>You may be right that <em>most</em> people don't. Most non-geeks I know have a hard time figuring how much their groceries are going to cost when our VAT rate goes down (now why is there VAT on groceries in the first place? Don't get me started...) or how much their paycheck is going to grow when the employer withholding tax goes down. They care what reality shows are most popular or who wins Idols or whatever.</p><p>But that doesn't change the fact that they should. It's one thing to be a member of a consumer co-op and buy stuff at member prices -- and another thing entirely to be looking for daily news, info about your or your friends' minor or major ailments, and have it all recorded forever in a way they are able to associate with your identity.</p><p>So Google has not been caught selling the info yet. They have, however, been <em>forced</em> by the DOJ to submit info about search terms and stuff. If Google's revenue takes a big hit for any reason, what's going to stop them from selling the info about the people who seem to spend a lot of time on Chinese dissident sites to the Chinese government? Or just to the highest bidder for whatever info they can offer?</p><p>Furthermore, imagine if a perfectly legal hobby were to be criminalized -- retroactively -- say, by a new government elected in a wave of frenzy about national security (totally hypothetical, I know but bear with me). Now if that had been my hobby, I would be a sitting duck for the newly created national security cop unit. I may be a perfectly law-abiding citizen perfectly willing to forgo a hobby if my government tells me it endangers the national security, but I would already be a criminal.</p><p>This is just an oversimplified example of what could happen. Much more complex, and at the same time impossible-to-win situations have happened many times over in different parts of the world since mid-1960s when I started following the news. To mention just one example from U.S. history (well researched, doesn't affect us today other than a warning example of just the kind of circs I describe), check out the Senator Joseph McCarthy crusade (and learn that he was just a front man for a lot of mean bullies, who wanted to do their bullying legally).</p><p>P.S. I have RefControl with Firefox, I use redirection for most of my systems that directs requests like web bugs to a dummy address etc. I don't do it for all of my systems all of the time, though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'People ' do n't CARE if they are tracked.You may be right that most people do n't .
Most non-geeks I know have a hard time figuring how much their groceries are going to cost when our VAT rate goes down ( now why is there VAT on groceries in the first place ?
Do n't get me started... ) or how much their paycheck is going to grow when the employer withholding tax goes down .
They care what reality shows are most popular or who wins Idols or whatever.But that does n't change the fact that they should .
It 's one thing to be a member of a consumer co-op and buy stuff at member prices -- and another thing entirely to be looking for daily news , info about your or your friends ' minor or major ailments , and have it all recorded forever in a way they are able to associate with your identity.So Google has not been caught selling the info yet .
They have , however , been forced by the DOJ to submit info about search terms and stuff .
If Google 's revenue takes a big hit for any reason , what 's going to stop them from selling the info about the people who seem to spend a lot of time on Chinese dissident sites to the Chinese government ?
Or just to the highest bidder for whatever info they can offer ? Furthermore , imagine if a perfectly legal hobby were to be criminalized -- retroactively -- say , by a new government elected in a wave of frenzy about national security ( totally hypothetical , I know but bear with me ) .
Now if that had been my hobby , I would be a sitting duck for the newly created national security cop unit .
I may be a perfectly law-abiding citizen perfectly willing to forgo a hobby if my government tells me it endangers the national security , but I would already be a criminal.This is just an oversimplified example of what could happen .
Much more complex , and at the same time impossible-to-win situations have happened many times over in different parts of the world since mid-1960s when I started following the news .
To mention just one example from U.S. history ( well researched , does n't affect us today other than a warning example of just the kind of circs I describe ) , check out the Senator Joseph McCarthy crusade ( and learn that he was just a front man for a lot of mean bullies , who wanted to do their bullying legally ) .P.S .
I have RefControl with Firefox , I use redirection for most of my systems that directs requests like web bugs to a dummy address etc .
I do n't do it for all of my systems all of the time , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'People' don't CARE if they are tracked.You may be right that most people don't.
Most non-geeks I know have a hard time figuring how much their groceries are going to cost when our VAT rate goes down (now why is there VAT on groceries in the first place?
Don't get me started...) or how much their paycheck is going to grow when the employer withholding tax goes down.
They care what reality shows are most popular or who wins Idols or whatever.But that doesn't change the fact that they should.
It's one thing to be a member of a consumer co-op and buy stuff at member prices -- and another thing entirely to be looking for daily news, info about your or your friends' minor or major ailments, and have it all recorded forever in a way they are able to associate with your identity.So Google has not been caught selling the info yet.
They have, however, been forced by the DOJ to submit info about search terms and stuff.
If Google's revenue takes a big hit for any reason, what's going to stop them from selling the info about the people who seem to spend a lot of time on Chinese dissident sites to the Chinese government?
Or just to the highest bidder for whatever info they can offer?Furthermore, imagine if a perfectly legal hobby were to be criminalized -- retroactively -- say, by a new government elected in a wave of frenzy about national security (totally hypothetical, I know but bear with me).
Now if that had been my hobby, I would be a sitting duck for the newly created national security cop unit.
I may be a perfectly law-abiding citizen perfectly willing to forgo a hobby if my government tells me it endangers the national security, but I would already be a criminal.This is just an oversimplified example of what could happen.
Much more complex, and at the same time impossible-to-win situations have happened many times over in different parts of the world since mid-1960s when I started following the news.
To mention just one example from U.S. history (well researched, doesn't affect us today other than a warning example of just the kind of circs I describe), check out the Senator Joseph McCarthy crusade (and learn that he was just a front man for a lot of mean bullies, who wanted to do their bullying legally).P.S.
I have RefControl with Firefox, I use redirection for most of my systems that directs requests like web bugs to a dummy address etc.
I don't do it for all of my systems all of the time, though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28195621</id>
	<title>Re:Even Slash-dot now REQUIRES JS and sends Google</title>
	<author>seramar</author>
	<datestamp>1244043300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh well, that's called Web 2.0</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh well , that 's called Web 2.0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh well, that's called Web 2.0</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28193299</id>
	<title>Re:Guilty as charged</title>
	<author>h4rm0ny</author>
	<datestamp>1244024880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
We get it - we're a bunch of Cassandras.
<br> <br>
Cassandra was also <i>right.</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>We get it - we 're a bunch of Cassandras .
Cassandra was also right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
We get it - we're a bunch of Cassandras.
Cassandra was also right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28197915</id>
	<title>Re:This is new?!</title>
	<author>OhHellWithIt</author>
	<datestamp>1244052540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>ADVERTISERS are Anti-Privacy People!!! They would create massive databases tracking every single man woman and child on the planet if they could and many are still working on that very thing.</p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.e.\_cummings" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">e.e. cummings</a> [wikipedia.org] had a real good <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=U6kCR-yvSSUC&amp;pg=PA70&amp;lpg=PA70&amp;dq=e+e+cummings+\%22a+salesman+is+an+it\%22&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=QZIroYP-aO&amp;sig=99BFehditSiBCaeBn3Iz7nbToLQ&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=yKwmSuKnLZyMtgeNieHZBg&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book\_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=2" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">poem</a> [google.com] on the subject.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We're all the brainless pawns in their business strategies and plans.</p></div><p>But we're not brainless. We can write poems and can post to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. That probably explains why you don't have an Chevrolet Vega in your driveway, among other things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ADVERTISERS are Anti-Privacy People ! ! !
They would create massive databases tracking every single man woman and child on the planet if they could and many are still working on that very thing .
e.e. cummings [ wikipedia.org ] had a real good poem [ google.com ] on the subject.We 're all the brainless pawns in their business strategies and plans.But we 're not brainless .
We can write poems and can post to / .
That probably explains why you do n't have an Chevrolet Vega in your driveway , among other things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ADVERTISERS are Anti-Privacy People!!!
They would create massive databases tracking every single man woman and child on the planet if they could and many are still working on that very thing.
e.e. cummings [wikipedia.org] had a real good poem [google.com] on the subject.We're all the brainless pawns in their business strategies and plans.But we're not brainless.
We can write poems and can post to /.
That probably explains why you don't have an Chevrolet Vega in your driveway, among other things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191677</id>
	<title>Re:Guilty as charged</title>
	<author>totally bogus dude</author>
	<datestamp>1243962240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you'd rather keep your SSN to yourself, then... don't enter your SSN on any websites?</p><p>Exploits aside, cookies can't be used to share information between websites, so even if a site you trust decides to do something retarded like store your SSN in a cookie, other sites can't access it.</p><p>Or was the reference to your Social Security Number just a bad example and you were really thinking of other things that can be automatically collected? Most of that isn't particularly private though, and can be altered if you have reason to think your OS or browser version or screen resolution are things you need to keep secret.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 'd rather keep your SSN to yourself , then... do n't enter your SSN on any websites ? Exploits aside , cookies ca n't be used to share information between websites , so even if a site you trust decides to do something retarded like store your SSN in a cookie , other sites ca n't access it.Or was the reference to your Social Security Number just a bad example and you were really thinking of other things that can be automatically collected ?
Most of that is n't particularly private though , and can be altered if you have reason to think your OS or browser version or screen resolution are things you need to keep secret .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you'd rather keep your SSN to yourself, then... don't enter your SSN on any websites?Exploits aside, cookies can't be used to share information between websites, so even if a site you trust decides to do something retarded like store your SSN in a cookie, other sites can't access it.Or was the reference to your Social Security Number just a bad example and you were really thinking of other things that can be automatically collected?
Most of that isn't particularly private though, and can be altered if you have reason to think your OS or browser version or screen resolution are things you need to keep secret.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192493</id>
	<title>Privacy Policy == Farce</title>
	<author>Inf0phreak</author>
	<datestamp>1243971240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Privacy policies have been a farce ever since they were introduced (mandated by law?) in the US. I have yet to see one that didn't more or less say the same as Raymond Chen points out in <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2009/05/26/9640963.aspx" title="msdn.com">this blog post</a> [msdn.com].
<p>
"We won't do anything illegal... except when we feel like it". There - boiled 99.9\% of all privacy policies on the (US part of the) web down to one simple sentence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy policies have been a farce ever since they were introduced ( mandated by law ?
) in the US .
I have yet to see one that did n't more or less say the same as Raymond Chen points out in this blog post [ msdn.com ] .
" We wo n't do anything illegal... except when we feel like it " .
There - boiled 99.9 \ % of all privacy policies on the ( US part of the ) web down to one simple sentence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privacy policies have been a farce ever since they were introduced (mandated by law?
) in the US.
I have yet to see one that didn't more or less say the same as Raymond Chen points out in this blog post [msdn.com].
"We won't do anything illegal... except when we feel like it".
There - boiled 99.9\% of all privacy policies on the (US part of the) web down to one simple sentence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28203029</id>
	<title>Re:Guilty as charged</title>
	<author>Civil\_Disobedient</author>
	<datestamp>1244029980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>People don't *want* to be tracked across websites. (Just like they don't *want* to see ads at all... but I digress.) The equivalent is the local store [...]</i></p><p>And what if the local store <i>was</i> doing something like that?  How would you respond?  I imagine, by very simply <i>not going to that store again</i>.  Well, same thing with websites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People do n't * want * to be tracked across websites .
( Just like they do n't * want * to see ads at all... but I digress .
) The equivalent is the local store [ ... ] And what if the local store was doing something like that ?
How would you respond ?
I imagine , by very simply not going to that store again .
Well , same thing with websites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People don't *want* to be tracked across websites.
(Just like they don't *want* to see ads at all... but I digress.
) The equivalent is the local store [...]And what if the local store was doing something like that?
How would you respond?
I imagine, by very simply not going to that store again.
Well, same thing with websites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28197105</id>
	<title>Policy to Protect Consumers?</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1244049420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is scarier is that <a href="http://knowprivacy.org/" title="knowprivacy.org" rel="nofollow">http://knowprivacy.org/</a> [knowprivacy.org] is doing this to "Recommendations for policymakers to protect consumers and for website operators to avoid stricter regulation."  Personally I liked how free the internet was.  I like using "Know Privacy" to find these companies and boycott them if need be.  I understand that they are trying to help make "good" policy, but isn't any policy a bad one?  Can't consumers protect themselves?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is scarier is that http : //knowprivacy.org/ [ knowprivacy.org ] is doing this to " Recommendations for policymakers to protect consumers and for website operators to avoid stricter regulation .
" Personally I liked how free the internet was .
I like using " Know Privacy " to find these companies and boycott them if need be .
I understand that they are trying to help make " good " policy , but is n't any policy a bad one ?
Ca n't consumers protect themselves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is scarier is that http://knowprivacy.org/ [knowprivacy.org] is doing this to "Recommendations for policymakers to protect consumers and for website operators to avoid stricter regulation.
"  Personally I liked how free the internet was.
I like using "Know Privacy" to find these companies and boycott them if need be.
I understand that they are trying to help make "good" policy, but isn't any policy a bad one?
Can't consumers protect themselves?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28194171</id>
	<title>Re:Guilty as charged</title>
	<author>Sausage Nibblets</author>
	<datestamp>1244035980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, Mr. President Obama has kept quiet on privacy, so we don't even know what his stances are on this issue...</p></div><p>What the fuck does Mr. Obama's stance on privacy have to do with this? He's the president, not king. He doesn't really have any say in the matter, believe it or not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , Mr. President Obama has kept quiet on privacy , so we do n't even know what his stances are on this issue...What the fuck does Mr. Obama 's stance on privacy have to do with this ?
He 's the president , not king .
He does n't really have any say in the matter , believe it or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, Mr. President Obama has kept quiet on privacy, so we don't even know what his stances are on this issue...What the fuck does Mr. Obama's stance on privacy have to do with this?
He's the president, not king.
He doesn't really have any say in the matter, believe it or not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190827</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28195715</id>
	<title>Re:Guilty as charged</title>
	<author>Aram Fingal</author>
	<datestamp>1244043720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Personally, I don't believe it makes sense to have a web completely free of "web bugs"...</p></div></blockquote><p>

Why?  Why can't advertising work on the web without tracking?  Advertising in newspapers, television and radio doesn't track people and that has worked just fine for many many years.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I do n't believe it makes sense to have a web completely free of " web bugs " .. . Why ? Why ca n't advertising work on the web without tracking ?
Advertising in newspapers , television and radio does n't track people and that has worked just fine for many many years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I don't believe it makes sense to have a web completely free of "web bugs"...

Why?  Why can't advertising work on the web without tracking?
Advertising in newspapers, television and radio doesn't track people and that has worked just fine for many many years.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191211</id>
	<title>Ah....but can they break the privacy....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243958040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....of the anonymous coward?!!!?!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....of the anonymous coward ? ! ! ! ? !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....of the anonymous coward?!!!?!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191093</id>
	<title>How Ironic...</title>
	<author>lag10</author>
	<datestamp>1243957260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How ironic that a school without sufficient knowledge to protect its students from identity theft lectures the world on personal privacy.</p><p>A number of student Social Security numbers were leaked not too long ago.</p><p><a href="http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090508/ap\_on\_hi\_te/us\_tec\_uc\_data\_theft" title="yahoo.com" rel="nofollow">Here's the article</a> [yahoo.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How ironic that a school without sufficient knowledge to protect its students from identity theft lectures the world on personal privacy.A number of student Social Security numbers were leaked not too long ago.Here 's the article [ yahoo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How ironic that a school without sufficient knowledge to protect its students from identity theft lectures the world on personal privacy.A number of student Social Security numbers were leaked not too long ago.Here's the article [yahoo.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191015</id>
	<title>Re:Guilty as charged</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243956240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, it's one thing if they stick a cookie on your computer saying "He logs in as lavacano201014, and he gets the password right", or "I've been here before, don't count me as a new visitor". It's like those events where they stamp your hand to show "You've paid, you just went outside for a smoke".

It's another thing if they record personal information that you'd rather keep to yourself. It's like forcing them to tattoo your name and Social Security Number to your forehead and both arms. Do you really wanna wander around with "I'm John Johnson, my SSN is 555-55-5555"?

That's my stance. Of course, if you really DO want to wander around like that, none of my business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it 's one thing if they stick a cookie on your computer saying " He logs in as lavacano201014 , and he gets the password right " , or " I 've been here before , do n't count me as a new visitor " .
It 's like those events where they stamp your hand to show " You 've paid , you just went outside for a smoke " .
It 's another thing if they record personal information that you 'd rather keep to yourself .
It 's like forcing them to tattoo your name and Social Security Number to your forehead and both arms .
Do you really wan na wander around with " I 'm John Johnson , my SSN is 555-55-5555 " ?
That 's my stance .
Of course , if you really DO want to wander around like that , none of my business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it's one thing if they stick a cookie on your computer saying "He logs in as lavacano201014, and he gets the password right", or "I've been here before, don't count me as a new visitor".
It's like those events where they stamp your hand to show "You've paid, you just went outside for a smoke".
It's another thing if they record personal information that you'd rather keep to yourself.
It's like forcing them to tattoo your name and Social Security Number to your forehead and both arms.
Do you really wanna wander around with "I'm John Johnson, my SSN is 555-55-5555"?
That's my stance.
Of course, if you really DO want to wander around like that, none of my business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192379</id>
	<title>Re:We need to take care of our privacy.</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1243970280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't that OpenID crap annoying? That was the deciding factor in me using Wordpress rather than Blogger.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that OpenID crap annoying ?
That was the deciding factor in me using Wordpress rather than Blogger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that OpenID crap annoying?
That was the deciding factor in me using Wordpress rather than Blogger.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191047</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28195715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28193735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28203029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28199201
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28203415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28195415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28197903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28194171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28193683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28193299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28197915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191677
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28195621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28193013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28193393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28199329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28209393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28197927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28193311
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28195577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_2311213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2311213.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28194001
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2311213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191195
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2311213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192553
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2311213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28193311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2311213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28197915
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2311213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28195715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28195415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190827
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192805
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191817
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28193299
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192865
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192973
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28199201
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28197903
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28193683
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28203029
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28194171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191015
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28195577
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2311213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28195149
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2311213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28193013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191871
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2311213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28190925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191047
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28193393
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28199329
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191829
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28193735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28203415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28197927
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28209393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28191635
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_2311213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28192337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_2311213.28195621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
