<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_06_2147233</id>
	<title>9th Circuit Says Feds' Security Checks At JPL Go Too Far</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1244282040000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://networkworld.com/" rel="nofollow">coondoggie</a> writes with an excerpt from Network World which explains that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals <i>"this week ruled against the federal government and in favor of employees at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in their case which centers around background investigations known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12 (Nelson et al. vs NASA).  The finding reaffirms the JPL employees claims' that
<a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/42468">the checks threaten their constitutional rights</a>. The stink stems from HSPD #12 which is in part aimed at gathering information to develop a common identification standard that ensures that people are who they say they are, so government facilities and sensitive information stored in networks remains protected."</i>

At issue in particular: an employee's not agreeing to "an open ended background investigation, conducted by unknown investigators, in order to receive an identification badge that was compliant with HSPD#12" was grounds for dismissal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>coondoggie writes with an excerpt from Network World which explains that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals " this week ruled against the federal government and in favor of employees at NASA 's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in their case which centers around background investigations known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive # 12 ( Nelson et al .
vs NASA ) .
The finding reaffirms the JPL employees claims ' that the checks threaten their constitutional rights .
The stink stems from HSPD # 12 which is in part aimed at gathering information to develop a common identification standard that ensures that people are who they say they are , so government facilities and sensitive information stored in networks remains protected .
" At issue in particular : an employee 's not agreeing to " an open ended background investigation , conducted by unknown investigators , in order to receive an identification badge that was compliant with HSPD # 12 " was grounds for dismissal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coondoggie writes with an excerpt from Network World which explains that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "this week ruled against the federal government and in favor of employees at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in their case which centers around background investigations known as Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12 (Nelson et al.
vs NASA).
The finding reaffirms the JPL employees claims' that
the checks threaten their constitutional rights.
The stink stems from HSPD #12 which is in part aimed at gathering information to develop a common identification standard that ensures that people are who they say they are, so government facilities and sensitive information stored in networks remains protected.
"

At issue in particular: an employee's not agreeing to "an open ended background investigation, conducted by unknown investigators, in order to receive an identification badge that was compliant with HSPD#12" was grounds for dismissal.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236903</id>
	<title>Of interest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244286540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA, these in-depth background investigations were being conducted for personnel in non-sensitive jobs.  I'd understand the checks for jobs which require clearance, but in this case they are wasting resources background checking everyone who works there, for the sake of uniformity.  It's a bit over the top.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA , these in-depth background investigations were being conducted for personnel in non-sensitive jobs .
I 'd understand the checks for jobs which require clearance , but in this case they are wasting resources background checking everyone who works there , for the sake of uniformity .
It 's a bit over the top .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA, these in-depth background investigations were being conducted for personnel in non-sensitive jobs.
I'd understand the checks for jobs which require clearance, but in this case they are wasting resources background checking everyone who works there, for the sake of uniformity.
It's a bit over the top.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237773</id>
	<title>Re:A sample of the background check</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244295180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It blows my mind that they could use language like "homosexuality could be a security issue" in this day and age.  And since when is sodomy "irresponsible" ?  Is Fred Phelps a federal consultant on security matters now ?</p><p>As the almighty MC Frontalot often says, "You shouldn't ought to be intolerant about who queers like to fuck"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It blows my mind that they could use language like " homosexuality could be a security issue " in this day and age .
And since when is sodomy " irresponsible " ?
Is Fred Phelps a federal consultant on security matters now ? As the almighty MC Frontalot often says , " You should n't ought to be intolerant about who queers like to fuck "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It blows my mind that they could use language like "homosexuality could be a security issue" in this day and age.
And since when is sodomy "irresponsible" ?
Is Fred Phelps a federal consultant on security matters now ?As the almighty MC Frontalot often says, "You shouldn't ought to be intolerant about who queers like to fuck"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237517</id>
	<title>Re:There are Constitutional rights here</title>
	<author>NovaHorizon</author>
	<datestamp>1244292840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you heard of the patriot act?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you heard of the patriot act ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you heard of the patriot act?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238063</id>
	<title>FFRDC</title>
	<author>Concerned Onlooker</author>
	<datestamp>1244297640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You should know that JPL employees are actually employees of Cal Tech.  JPL is what is known as a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFRDC" title="wikipedia.org">Federally Funded Research and Development Center</a> [wikipedia.org].  And many of the employees there are not drones who like to roll over for government abuse, even if their paychecks ultimately come from that direction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should know that JPL employees are actually employees of Cal Tech .
JPL is what is known as a Federally Funded Research and Development Center [ wikipedia.org ] .
And many of the employees there are not drones who like to roll over for government abuse , even if their paychecks ultimately come from that direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should know that JPL employees are actually employees of Cal Tech.
JPL is what is known as a Federally Funded Research and Development Center [wikipedia.org].
And many of the employees there are not drones who like to roll over for government abuse, even if their paychecks ultimately come from that direction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238009</id>
	<title>Re:A sample of the background check</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244297220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It blows my mind that they could use language like "homosexuality could be a security issue" in this day and age.</p></div><p>Here's the rationale:  Let's say you're gay but in the closet.  Now I blackmail you for national security secrets...</p><p>And yes, same thing if you're an adulterous hetero or a problem gambler or a drug user.  The issue isn't being gay per se, it's the societal environment around you.  "Could be" probably means that a closeted homosexual is a potential problem, while an openly gay one isn't.  In other words, if you have something about yourself that you would want to hide, you're giving others leverage that could be exploited.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It blows my mind that they could use language like " homosexuality could be a security issue " in this day and age.Here 's the rationale : Let 's say you 're gay but in the closet .
Now I blackmail you for national security secrets...And yes , same thing if you 're an adulterous hetero or a problem gambler or a drug user .
The issue is n't being gay per se , it 's the societal environment around you .
" Could be " probably means that a closeted homosexual is a potential problem , while an openly gay one is n't .
In other words , if you have something about yourself that you would want to hide , you 're giving others leverage that could be exploited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It blows my mind that they could use language like "homosexuality could be a security issue" in this day and age.Here's the rationale:  Let's say you're gay but in the closet.
Now I blackmail you for national security secrets...And yes, same thing if you're an adulterous hetero or a problem gambler or a drug user.
The issue isn't being gay per se, it's the societal environment around you.
"Could be" probably means that a closeted homosexual is a potential problem, while an openly gay one isn't.
In other words, if you have something about yourself that you would want to hide, you're giving others leverage that could be exploited.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238153</id>
	<title>Re:probing questions.</title>
	<author>Concerned Onlooker</author>
	<datestamp>1244298360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope he answered "only with a pig."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope he answered " only with a pig .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope he answered "only with a pig.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236937</id>
	<title>i just got off the toilet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244286960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i shit out an obama.<br> <br>plop!</htmltext>
<tokenext>i shit out an obama .
plop !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i shit out an obama.
plop!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28250873</id>
	<title>Re:JPL isn't NASA</title>
	<author>Skjellifetti</author>
	<datestamp>1244475240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll bet that JPL is handled the same way as DOE's Nat'l Labs. ORNL, Livermore, Los Alamos, etc. are physically owned by DOE which hires a contractor to manage them (Univ of TN &amp;&amp; Batelle for ORNL, Univ of CA for Los Alamos).  So JPL is probably physically owned by NASA and the employees are paid by CalTech acting as contractor.  If CalTech actually owned JPL, they could probably tell NASA and DHS where to put their security checks for employees whose jobs don't require security clearances.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll bet that JPL is handled the same way as DOE 's Nat'l Labs .
ORNL , Livermore , Los Alamos , etc .
are physically owned by DOE which hires a contractor to manage them ( Univ of TN &amp;&amp; Batelle for ORNL , Univ of CA for Los Alamos ) .
So JPL is probably physically owned by NASA and the employees are paid by CalTech acting as contractor .
If CalTech actually owned JPL , they could probably tell NASA and DHS where to put their security checks for employees whose jobs do n't require security clearances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll bet that JPL is handled the same way as DOE's Nat'l Labs.
ORNL, Livermore, Los Alamos, etc.
are physically owned by DOE which hires a contractor to manage them (Univ of TN &amp;&amp; Batelle for ORNL, Univ of CA for Los Alamos).
So JPL is probably physically owned by NASA and the employees are paid by CalTech acting as contractor.
If CalTech actually owned JPL, they could probably tell NASA and DHS where to put their security checks for employees whose jobs don't require security clearances.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28240873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28240685</id>
	<title>Re:you would not know why you failed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244381580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Huh...sounds like they're trying to make a really hard level of Splinter Cell a reality.</p><p>"Alright Fisher, you need to knock out the guard and get the techie, then find his ID card. The ID card will get you access to the computers and doors. Oh, and don't set off any alarms."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh...sounds like they 're trying to make a really hard level of Splinter Cell a reality .
" Alright Fisher , you need to knock out the guard and get the techie , then find his ID card .
The ID card will get you access to the computers and doors .
Oh , and do n't set off any alarms .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh...sounds like they're trying to make a really hard level of Splinter Cell a reality.
"Alright Fisher, you need to knock out the guard and get the techie, then find his ID card.
The ID card will get you access to the computers and doors.
Oh, and don't set off any alarms.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237329</id>
	<title>9th Circuit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244290980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this the same 9th circuit that said the government can pass a resolution condemning a specific religious group by name and insult its members, without violating the 1st amendment? I think it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the same 9th circuit that said the government can pass a resolution condemning a specific religious group by name and insult its members , without violating the 1st amendment ?
I think it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this the same 9th circuit that said the government can pass a resolution condemning a specific religious group by name and insult its members, without violating the 1st amendment?
I think it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237061</id>
	<title>For background to comment intelligently...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244288280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work at NASA, and am actually tangentially involved in this.</p><p>Needless to say, I should not comment any more than if you want to have a good background to discuss this, look at NIST Special Publication 800-63 and FIPS 201 then decide if NASA did what they say.  If so, bitch at NIST, not NASA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work at NASA , and am actually tangentially involved in this.Needless to say , I should not comment any more than if you want to have a good background to discuss this , look at NIST Special Publication 800-63 and FIPS 201 then decide if NASA did what they say .
If so , bitch at NIST , not NASA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work at NASA, and am actually tangentially involved in this.Needless to say, I should not comment any more than if you want to have a good background to discuss this, look at NIST Special Publication 800-63 and FIPS 201 then decide if NASA did what they say.
If so, bitch at NIST, not NASA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237757</id>
	<title>HSPD 12 is waste.</title>
	<author>pavon</author>
	<datestamp>1244295000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good. Now can we return back to having site-specific badges that are appropriate for the level of work being done at different federal facilities? Or we can use this new common ID that creates a single point of failure in the creation of badges, makes it easier to wander unescorted in facilities that you don't have access to, and adds significant cost and delay in getting people badged. Either way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good .
Now can we return back to having site-specific badges that are appropriate for the level of work being done at different federal facilities ?
Or we can use this new common ID that creates a single point of failure in the creation of badges , makes it easier to wander unescorted in facilities that you do n't have access to , and adds significant cost and delay in getting people badged .
Either way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good.
Now can we return back to having site-specific badges that are appropriate for the level of work being done at different federal facilities?
Or we can use this new common ID that creates a single point of failure in the creation of badges, makes it easier to wander unescorted in facilities that you don't have access to, and adds significant cost and delay in getting people badged.
Either way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238923</id>
	<title>Re:They're smoking that wacky weed again.</title>
	<author>bware</author>
	<datestamp>1244307240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>JPL employees are not Federal employees.  They work for a private university, Caltech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>JPL employees are not Federal employees .
They work for a private university , Caltech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JPL employees are not Federal employees.
They work for a private university, Caltech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237679</id>
	<title>probing questions.</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1244294280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know an IT worker who had to fill out a questionnaire for a law-enforcement agency ("cops" basically). One of the questions asked if they'd ever <b>had sex with animals</b>. I swear it's true. Personnel administrators sometimes go too far.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know an IT worker who had to fill out a questionnaire for a law-enforcement agency ( " cops " basically ) .
One of the questions asked if they 'd ever had sex with animals .
I swear it 's true .
Personnel administrators sometimes go too far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know an IT worker who had to fill out a questionnaire for a law-enforcement agency ("cops" basically).
One of the questions asked if they'd ever had sex with animals.
I swear it's true.
Personnel administrators sometimes go too far.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237999</id>
	<title>I guess things have changed...</title>
	<author>billybob\_jcv</author>
	<datestamp>1244297100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>15+ years ago I had a Top Secret/SSBI clearance.  As part of the background investigation, I was required to give references that had known me for at least 15 years.  Since my first security interview I had always told the truth:  "yeah, I tried pot a few times in high school, but I never bought it or sold it and I never used it after that."  I also told them that all of my family and friends knew about it and I didn't care who else knew.  I told that same story at every interview, and I never had a problem getting any clearance.  In the days before glasnost, when the KGB were the primary bad guys, we were always briefed that the biggest threat was an employee being compromised because of something that could be used against them - financial debts, drug use, criminal background, relatives in hostile foreign countries - anything that could be used as leverage to make you vulnerable to espionage.  The idea with drug use wasn't that you were some drug crazed idiot - it was that you might be ashamed of the drug use, or might need money - and that made you vulnerable.  I guess since I said everyone already knew about my minor BS, and I didn't care who else knew, it wasn't a problem.  I think lying about it and then having it turn up during the investigation would have been much, much worse. <br> <br>

My investigation was in the 90's - before 9/11 and before Homeland Security.  Officially, my employment was not dependent on my clearance - but everyone knew that the reality was that the position required a clearance, so without the clearance, there would not be an available job for me and I would be let go.  It happened to a couple of guys who for whatever reason could not get cleared.<br> <br>

All ancient history now...</htmltext>
<tokenext>15 + years ago I had a Top Secret/SSBI clearance .
As part of the background investigation , I was required to give references that had known me for at least 15 years .
Since my first security interview I had always told the truth : " yeah , I tried pot a few times in high school , but I never bought it or sold it and I never used it after that .
" I also told them that all of my family and friends knew about it and I did n't care who else knew .
I told that same story at every interview , and I never had a problem getting any clearance .
In the days before glasnost , when the KGB were the primary bad guys , we were always briefed that the biggest threat was an employee being compromised because of something that could be used against them - financial debts , drug use , criminal background , relatives in hostile foreign countries - anything that could be used as leverage to make you vulnerable to espionage .
The idea with drug use was n't that you were some drug crazed idiot - it was that you might be ashamed of the drug use , or might need money - and that made you vulnerable .
I guess since I said everyone already knew about my minor BS , and I did n't care who else knew , it was n't a problem .
I think lying about it and then having it turn up during the investigation would have been much , much worse .
My investigation was in the 90 's - before 9/11 and before Homeland Security .
Officially , my employment was not dependent on my clearance - but everyone knew that the reality was that the position required a clearance , so without the clearance , there would not be an available job for me and I would be let go .
It happened to a couple of guys who for whatever reason could not get cleared .
All ancient history now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>15+ years ago I had a Top Secret/SSBI clearance.
As part of the background investigation, I was required to give references that had known me for at least 15 years.
Since my first security interview I had always told the truth:  "yeah, I tried pot a few times in high school, but I never bought it or sold it and I never used it after that.
"  I also told them that all of my family and friends knew about it and I didn't care who else knew.
I told that same story at every interview, and I never had a problem getting any clearance.
In the days before glasnost, when the KGB were the primary bad guys, we were always briefed that the biggest threat was an employee being compromised because of something that could be used against them - financial debts, drug use, criminal background, relatives in hostile foreign countries - anything that could be used as leverage to make you vulnerable to espionage.
The idea with drug use wasn't that you were some drug crazed idiot - it was that you might be ashamed of the drug use, or might need money - and that made you vulnerable.
I guess since I said everyone already knew about my minor BS, and I didn't care who else knew, it wasn't a problem.
I think lying about it and then having it turn up during the investigation would have been much, much worse.
My investigation was in the 90's - before 9/11 and before Homeland Security.
Officially, my employment was not dependent on my clearance - but everyone knew that the reality was that the position required a clearance, so without the clearance, there would not be an available job for me and I would be let go.
It happened to a couple of guys who for whatever reason could not get cleared.
All ancient history now...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236959</id>
	<title>you would not know why you failed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244287320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a briefing where I work about the plan. If you failed the background check, you had no way of learning the reasons. Though you could technically appeal, what would have been the good of that had you not known why. What if it had been simply that you donated money to a certain person, or that your spouse was from a certain country, or a mistaken identity? The other problem was that it took so long to do the checks. Since the program had not started they had no idea, but it was thought that the new process would likely add 6 months to the already tedious process in place. To give you an idea I have had two background checks here. Once it took 4 months the other time 2 since I had already passed an earlier one. Soon we learned about the likely challenge from NASA employees and we waited it out. It has taken years to get this far and thankfully it looks like this overstepping is going to end. The other thing is that the dept I work for and the job I do has me doing absolutely nothing secret or anything of the sort that might need this level of background check. Every employee was going to need it.</p><p>The final point I want to add is that during the briefing it became clear that not only was this a terrible new big brother style of infringement but that there were companies that were going to make a fortune doing this. As an example we were going to have to get a new set of IDs and all the doors and computers would have readers in order to use them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a briefing where I work about the plan .
If you failed the background check , you had no way of learning the reasons .
Though you could technically appeal , what would have been the good of that had you not known why .
What if it had been simply that you donated money to a certain person , or that your spouse was from a certain country , or a mistaken identity ?
The other problem was that it took so long to do the checks .
Since the program had not started they had no idea , but it was thought that the new process would likely add 6 months to the already tedious process in place .
To give you an idea I have had two background checks here .
Once it took 4 months the other time 2 since I had already passed an earlier one .
Soon we learned about the likely challenge from NASA employees and we waited it out .
It has taken years to get this far and thankfully it looks like this overstepping is going to end .
The other thing is that the dept I work for and the job I do has me doing absolutely nothing secret or anything of the sort that might need this level of background check .
Every employee was going to need it.The final point I want to add is that during the briefing it became clear that not only was this a terrible new big brother style of infringement but that there were companies that were going to make a fortune doing this .
As an example we were going to have to get a new set of IDs and all the doors and computers would have readers in order to use them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a briefing where I work about the plan.
If you failed the background check, you had no way of learning the reasons.
Though you could technically appeal, what would have been the good of that had you not known why.
What if it had been simply that you donated money to a certain person, or that your spouse was from a certain country, or a mistaken identity?
The other problem was that it took so long to do the checks.
Since the program had not started they had no idea, but it was thought that the new process would likely add 6 months to the already tedious process in place.
To give you an idea I have had two background checks here.
Once it took 4 months the other time 2 since I had already passed an earlier one.
Soon we learned about the likely challenge from NASA employees and we waited it out.
It has taken years to get this far and thankfully it looks like this overstepping is going to end.
The other thing is that the dept I work for and the job I do has me doing absolutely nothing secret or anything of the sort that might need this level of background check.
Every employee was going to need it.The final point I want to add is that during the briefing it became clear that not only was this a terrible new big brother style of infringement but that there were companies that were going to make a fortune doing this.
As an example we were going to have to get a new set of IDs and all the doors and computers would have readers in order to use them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28240263</id>
	<title>JPL then... and now</title>
	<author>UnixUnix</author>
	<datestamp>1244375100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>


<p> I worked at JPL for a few years (pre 9/11).  It was a congenial environment.  I got my badge with no hassles; I certainly sympathize with the present plight of my former colleagues and wish them good luck, and may they win if the case goes to the US Supreme Court.</p><p>  I certainly hope the Obama administration will scale back Bush-era excesses. They have harmed us much more than terrorism ever could. </p><p> Incidentally, back then I was tickled to find out that the code we were writing for NASA spacecrafts was in the public domain -- anybody could request a copy.  May I assume it is no longer so?!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked at JPL for a few years ( pre 9/11 ) .
It was a congenial environment .
I got my badge with no hassles ; I certainly sympathize with the present plight of my former colleagues and wish them good luck , and may they win if the case goes to the US Supreme Court .
I certainly hope the Obama administration will scale back Bush-era excesses .
They have harmed us much more than terrorism ever could .
Incidentally , back then I was tickled to find out that the code we were writing for NASA spacecrafts was in the public domain -- anybody could request a copy .
May I assume it is no longer so ? !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>


 I worked at JPL for a few years (pre 9/11).
It was a congenial environment.
I got my badge with no hassles; I certainly sympathize with the present plight of my former colleagues and wish them good luck, and may they win if the case goes to the US Supreme Court.
I certainly hope the Obama administration will scale back Bush-era excesses.
They have harmed us much more than terrorism ever could.
Incidentally, back then I was tickled to find out that the code we were writing for NASA spacecrafts was in the public domain -- anybody could request a copy.
May I assume it is no longer so?!
:)  </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28240425</id>
	<title>Re:What about private companies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244377920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is all government departments and agencies -- even the lowly USDA has a HSPD #12 requirement to issue badges, do those interviews, etc. Oh and yes, I believe contractors are required to go through it -- especially if computer access is required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is all government departments and agencies -- even the lowly USDA has a HSPD # 12 requirement to issue badges , do those interviews , etc .
Oh and yes , I believe contractors are required to go through it -- especially if computer access is required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is all government departments and agencies -- even the lowly USDA has a HSPD #12 requirement to issue badges, do those interviews, etc.
Oh and yes, I believe contractors are required to go through it -- especially if computer access is required.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237133</id>
	<title>A more accurate coverage</title>
	<author>losttoy</author>
	<datestamp>1244289000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-rutten6-2009jun06,0,7067783.column" title="latimes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-rutten6-2009jun06,0,7067783.column</a> [latimes.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-rutten6-2009jun06,0,7067783.column [ latimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-rutten6-2009jun06,0,7067783.column [latimes.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236997</id>
	<title>Don't breakout the champagne yet</title>
	<author>Vinegar Joe</author>
	<datestamp>1244287740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I recall, the 9th Circuit has more of its decisions overturned than any other court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I recall , the 9th Circuit has more of its decisions overturned than any other court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I recall, the 9th Circuit has more of its decisions overturned than any other court.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237619</id>
	<title>Re:There are Constitutional rights here</title>
	<author>Atlantis-Rising</author>
	<datestamp>1244293860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suggest you pay some attention to those rights you so freely tout. They don't mean what you think they do- specifically the 9th and 10th Amendments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suggest you pay some attention to those rights you so freely tout .
They do n't mean what you think they do- specifically the 9th and 10th Amendments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suggest you pay some attention to those rights you so freely tout.
They don't mean what you think they do- specifically the 9th and 10th Amendments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236875</id>
	<title>HSPD #12</title>
	<author>HiggsBison</author>
	<datestamp>1244286360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12:<br>
You do <b>not</b> talk about Homeland Security Presidential Directives.</p><p>...or something like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Homeland Security Presidential Directive # 12 : You do not talk about Homeland Security Presidential Directives....or something like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12:
You do not talk about Homeland Security Presidential Directives....or something like that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238385</id>
	<title>Re:Linked article isn't accurate</title>
	<author>Voltageaav</author>
	<datestamp>1244301240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I was in the Air Force, I had a security clearence and had to go through the same background checks.  I told them from the beginning I had smoked pot before and had no trouble.  That's not the issue.  The issue is if you lie about it.  If you lie about anything and they find out about it, that's when you fail the check.  There are other things as well.  If you have people you talk to from certain countries.  One person I worked with failed his check because his ex wife was from one of those countries.  He did eventually get his clearance, but he couldn't work for a while.  Doing the check for everyone may seem excessive, but anyone who works in the same building that classified information is kept in could potentially pick up classified information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I was in the Air Force , I had a security clearence and had to go through the same background checks .
I told them from the beginning I had smoked pot before and had no trouble .
That 's not the issue .
The issue is if you lie about it .
If you lie about anything and they find out about it , that 's when you fail the check .
There are other things as well .
If you have people you talk to from certain countries .
One person I worked with failed his check because his ex wife was from one of those countries .
He did eventually get his clearance , but he could n't work for a while .
Doing the check for everyone may seem excessive , but anyone who works in the same building that classified information is kept in could potentially pick up classified information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I was in the Air Force, I had a security clearence and had to go through the same background checks.
I told them from the beginning I had smoked pot before and had no trouble.
That's not the issue.
The issue is if you lie about it.
If you lie about anything and they find out about it, that's when you fail the check.
There are other things as well.
If you have people you talk to from certain countries.
One person I worked with failed his check because his ex wife was from one of those countries.
He did eventually get his clearance, but he couldn't work for a while.
Doing the check for everyone may seem excessive, but anyone who works in the same building that classified information is kept in could potentially pick up classified information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236987</id>
	<title>Re:They're smoking that wacky weed again.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244287560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forget who the government is supposed to be working for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forget who the government is supposed to be working for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forget who the government is supposed to be working for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236919</id>
	<title>Workers were not seeking security clerance even..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244286840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The plaintiffs are scientists, engineers and administrative workers at JPL, which is operated jointly by the California Institute of Technology and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Like the vast majority of JPL employees, they do not have or need security clearances, and have been identified by the government as holding &#226;oenon-sensitive&#226; positions.</p></div><p>
I had to read further and deeper through the links to find this comment. So these people not needing security clearance were subjected to the expansive and open ended review permitted by the HSPD #12.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The plaintiffs are scientists , engineers and administrative workers at JPL , which is operated jointly by the California Institute of Technology and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration .
Like the vast majority of JPL employees , they do not have or need security clearances , and have been identified by the government as holding   oenon-sensitive   positions .
I had to read further and deeper through the links to find this comment .
So these people not needing security clearance were subjected to the expansive and open ended review permitted by the HSPD # 12 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The plaintiffs are scientists, engineers and administrative workers at JPL, which is operated jointly by the California Institute of Technology and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Like the vast majority of JPL employees, they do not have or need security clearances, and have been identified by the government as holding âoenon-sensitiveâ positions.
I had to read further and deeper through the links to find this comment.
So these people not needing security clearance were subjected to the expansive and open ended review permitted by the HSPD #12.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237227</id>
	<title>JPL Waste Reclamation Engineer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244289960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but if you work for ANYTHING that even remotely reaches a sensitive/classified nature, which JPL obviously does, you need it to get on the property, much less clock in, much less pick up your spouse (which I do, quite happily, every workday.)  If you don't like it, I'm sure CalTech is hiring (oh wait, they're bankrupt. Again.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but if you work for ANYTHING that even remotely reaches a sensitive/classified nature , which JPL obviously does , you need it to get on the property , much less clock in , much less pick up your spouse ( which I do , quite happily , every workday .
) If you do n't like it , I 'm sure CalTech is hiring ( oh wait , they 're bankrupt .
Again. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but if you work for ANYTHING that even remotely reaches a sensitive/classified nature, which JPL obviously does, you need it to get on the property, much less clock in, much less pick up your spouse (which I do, quite happily, every workday.
)  If you don't like it, I'm sure CalTech is hiring (oh wait, they're bankrupt.
Again.)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28243581</id>
	<title>Fingerprints aren't checked...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244407860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...steal a card and you're in?</p><p>I followed the link (http://www.nextgov.com/the\_basics/tb\_20080610\_8037.php) to find out more about HSPD-12.</p><p>If I read it correctly, the whole security card thing is a sham--they mention fingerprints, and then when you read about the fingerprints, they compare the fingerprint information stored in the card to fingerprint information stored in a database.</p><p>They don't check the fingerprints of the person carrying the card.  So, somebody wants to get into the facility, they simply steal a card, and no problem.</p><p>Does somebody know more about this than is in the article--is it really that silly of a system?  And, if so, as a US citizen, I'd like to sue the government, the employees responsible for procuring the system, and the system supplier for wasting tax dollars on such a system.  I wonder if I could do that?</p><p>Sorry, posting as an AC for what I think are obvious reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...steal a card and you 're in ? I followed the link ( http : //www.nextgov.com/the \ _basics/tb \ _20080610 \ _8037.php ) to find out more about HSPD-12.If I read it correctly , the whole security card thing is a sham--they mention fingerprints , and then when you read about the fingerprints , they compare the fingerprint information stored in the card to fingerprint information stored in a database.They do n't check the fingerprints of the person carrying the card .
So , somebody wants to get into the facility , they simply steal a card , and no problem.Does somebody know more about this than is in the article--is it really that silly of a system ?
And , if so , as a US citizen , I 'd like to sue the government , the employees responsible for procuring the system , and the system supplier for wasting tax dollars on such a system .
I wonder if I could do that ? Sorry , posting as an AC for what I think are obvious reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...steal a card and you're in?I followed the link (http://www.nextgov.com/the\_basics/tb\_20080610\_8037.php) to find out more about HSPD-12.If I read it correctly, the whole security card thing is a sham--they mention fingerprints, and then when you read about the fingerprints, they compare the fingerprint information stored in the card to fingerprint information stored in a database.They don't check the fingerprints of the person carrying the card.
So, somebody wants to get into the facility, they simply steal a card, and no problem.Does somebody know more about this than is in the article--is it really that silly of a system?
And, if so, as a US citizen, I'd like to sue the government, the employees responsible for procuring the system, and the system supplier for wasting tax dollars on such a system.
I wonder if I could do that?Sorry, posting as an AC for what I think are obvious reasons.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238173</id>
	<title>Re:They're smoking that wacky weed again.</title>
	<author>dave420</author>
	<datestamp>1244298600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah!  If only they had this policy back in the 70s - Carl Sagan wouldn't have been allowed to work there.  Fuckin' good-for-nothin' dope-smoking hippie.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah !
If only they had this policy back in the 70s - Carl Sagan would n't have been allowed to work there .
Fuckin ' good-for-nothin ' dope-smoking hippie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah!
If only they had this policy back in the 70s - Carl Sagan wouldn't have been allowed to work there.
Fuckin' good-for-nothin' dope-smoking hippie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28239115</id>
	<title>Re:A sample of the background check</title>
	<author>DragonTHC</author>
	<datestamp>1244310180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm all for requiring security clearance with working at JPL, but I firmly believe credit history is no indicator for security.</p><p>I have been disqualified from being hired at several jobs due to my credit history.  It has no bearing on me as a person or how I conduct myself professionally.</p><p>I am not an irresponsible person, nor to I lie, cheat, or steal.  That being said, my credit history has a single default with a credit card I got when I was 19.</p><p>I find it morally objectionable for HR to have the capability of judging other people and gaining access to private information.</p><p>This is why I no longer consent to background checks.  Oddly enough, every other member of my family has, at some point in their life, held a secret clearance.  Both my parents did in the 60's  My brother did in the Navy.  My sister doesn't but her husband did in the Air Force.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all for requiring security clearance with working at JPL , but I firmly believe credit history is no indicator for security.I have been disqualified from being hired at several jobs due to my credit history .
It has no bearing on me as a person or how I conduct myself professionally.I am not an irresponsible person , nor to I lie , cheat , or steal .
That being said , my credit history has a single default with a credit card I got when I was 19.I find it morally objectionable for HR to have the capability of judging other people and gaining access to private information.This is why I no longer consent to background checks .
Oddly enough , every other member of my family has , at some point in their life , held a secret clearance .
Both my parents did in the 60 's My brother did in the Navy .
My sister does n't but her husband did in the Air Force .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all for requiring security clearance with working at JPL, but I firmly believe credit history is no indicator for security.I have been disqualified from being hired at several jobs due to my credit history.
It has no bearing on me as a person or how I conduct myself professionally.I am not an irresponsible person, nor to I lie, cheat, or steal.
That being said, my credit history has a single default with a credit card I got when I was 19.I find it morally objectionable for HR to have the capability of judging other people and gaining access to private information.This is why I no longer consent to background checks.
Oddly enough, every other member of my family has, at some point in their life, held a secret clearance.
Both my parents did in the 60's  My brother did in the Navy.
My sister doesn't but her husband did in the Air Force.
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28250777</id>
	<title>Atlas Shrugged all over again</title>
	<author>starshinecruzer</author>
	<datestamp>1244474760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The term "directives" gave me a chill of terror down my spine. In "Atlas Shrugged" ludicrous anti-capitalism restrictions were enacted, ones that would never make it through congress. How? Because they weren't laws, they were "directives", basically laws that could be enacted *without* democratic process.</p><p>Let's hope this ruling get the directive off the books.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The term " directives " gave me a chill of terror down my spine .
In " Atlas Shrugged " ludicrous anti-capitalism restrictions were enacted , ones that would never make it through congress .
How ? Because they were n't laws , they were " directives " , basically laws that could be enacted * without * democratic process.Let 's hope this ruling get the directive off the books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The term "directives" gave me a chill of terror down my spine.
In "Atlas Shrugged" ludicrous anti-capitalism restrictions were enacted, ones that would never make it through congress.
How? Because they weren't laws, they were "directives", basically laws that could be enacted *without* democratic process.Let's hope this ruling get the directive off the books.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236995</id>
	<title>There are Constitutional rights here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244287620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sorry that's how it is in your country, but in the US the Federal Government has to abide by the Constitution and all right not specifically given to the Federal Government (by same) are reserved elsewhere. (See the 9th and 10th Amendments.)
<p>
That means that it's not really about the people being harassed and forced to undergo invasive searches (See 4th Amendment) finding another job.  No.  It's about their job being just fine, and the Federal government having to be reasonable with its searches and seizures. (Again, 4th Am.)
</p><p>
That's how it is in our country.  If you don't like it, watch the door doesn't hit you in the ass on your way out, and remember to wipe your feet on the "good riddance to those who don't respect civil liberties" doormat.
</p><p>
E</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry that 's how it is in your country , but in the US the Federal Government has to abide by the Constitution and all right not specifically given to the Federal Government ( by same ) are reserved elsewhere .
( See the 9th and 10th Amendments .
) That means that it 's not really about the people being harassed and forced to undergo invasive searches ( See 4th Amendment ) finding another job .
No. It 's about their job being just fine , and the Federal government having to be reasonable with its searches and seizures .
( Again , 4th Am .
) That 's how it is in our country .
If you do n't like it , watch the door does n't hit you in the ass on your way out , and remember to wipe your feet on the " good riddance to those who do n't respect civil liberties " doormat .
E</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry that's how it is in your country, but in the US the Federal Government has to abide by the Constitution and all right not specifically given to the Federal Government (by same) are reserved elsewhere.
(See the 9th and 10th Amendments.
)

That means that it's not really about the people being harassed and forced to undergo invasive searches (See 4th Amendment) finding another job.
No.  It's about their job being just fine, and the Federal government having to be reasonable with its searches and seizures.
(Again, 4th Am.
)

That's how it is in our country.
If you don't like it, watch the door doesn't hit you in the ass on your way out, and remember to wipe your feet on the "good riddance to those who don't respect civil liberties" doormat.
E</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238439</id>
	<title>For the Homeland!</title>
	<author>CuteSteveJobs</author>
	<datestamp>1244301840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Homeland Security Presidential Directive<br>
<br>
Homeland, much like Fatherland, gives me proud images of charging in Panzer Tanks across the Ukrainian plains to stick it to the undermenschen. Long live Das Homelanden! Mein Liebe!</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Homeland Security Presidential Directive Homeland , much like Fatherland , gives me proud images of charging in Panzer Tanks across the Ukrainian plains to stick it to the undermenschen .
Long live Das Homelanden !
Mein Liebe !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Homeland Security Presidential Directive

Homeland, much like Fatherland, gives me proud images of charging in Panzer Tanks across the Ukrainian plains to stick it to the undermenschen.
Long live Das Homelanden!
Mein Liebe!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236881</id>
	<title>What about private companies?</title>
	<author>Eternauta3k</author>
	<datestamp>1244286420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I understand many components of rocket engines are manufactures by private companies. Are they subject to these security standards?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand many components of rocket engines are manufactures by private companies .
Are they subject to these security standards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand many components of rocket engines are manufactures by private companies.
Are they subject to these security standards?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237193</id>
	<title>Re:HSPD #12</title>
	<author>Presto Vivace</author>
	<datestamp>1244289780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/laws/gc\_1217616624097.shtm#1" title="dhs.gov">Full Text: Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12</a> [dhs.gov]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Full Text : Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 [ dhs.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Full Text: Homeland Security Presidential Directive-12 [dhs.gov]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28284631</id>
	<title>Re:A sample of the background check</title>
	<author>billcopc</author>
	<datestamp>1244625780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not a problem with homosexuality, that's a problem with American social tension.</p><p>Hint: Pretending the problem doesn't exist is not going to make it go away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not a problem with homosexuality , that 's a problem with American social tension.Hint : Pretending the problem does n't exist is not going to make it go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not a problem with homosexuality, that's a problem with American social tension.Hint: Pretending the problem doesn't exist is not going to make it go away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237651</id>
	<title>This should've been a News story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244294040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, mod me offtopic if you'd like, but how is this a YRO story?  The JPL campus is not an online affair.  Privacy, yes, security, certainly, but it has nothing to do with online (other'n the fact that someone let it into Slashdot!)  I mean, you don't see NASA letting us Internet denizens do anything about their program, aside from letting us vote for the name of an ISS module (and then turning our choice down), do you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , mod me offtopic if you 'd like , but how is this a YRO story ?
The JPL campus is not an online affair .
Privacy , yes , security , certainly , but it has nothing to do with online ( other'n the fact that someone let it into Slashdot !
) I mean , you do n't see NASA letting us Internet denizens do anything about their program , aside from letting us vote for the name of an ISS module ( and then turning our choice down ) , do you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, mod me offtopic if you'd like, but how is this a YRO story?
The JPL campus is not an online affair.
Privacy, yes, security, certainly, but it has nothing to do with online (other'n the fact that someone let it into Slashdot!
)  I mean, you don't see NASA letting us Internet denizens do anything about their program, aside from letting us vote for the name of an ISS module (and then turning our choice down), do you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238135</id>
	<title>Re:JPL Waste Reclamation Engineer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244298240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Sorry, but if you work for ANYTHING that even remotely reaches a sensitive/classified nature, which JPL obviously does..."
<br> <br>
Incorrect.  There is almost nothing at JPL that gets into the classified category.  I'm not sure how "sensitive" is defined, but the biggest deal at JPL would be making sure that export controls are observed and that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITAR" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">ITAR rules</a> [wikipedia.org] are followed (almost anything can be considered 'arms' by the government).  Reasonable restrictions, but it's not the top-secret place you seem to think it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Sorry , but if you work for ANYTHING that even remotely reaches a sensitive/classified nature , which JPL obviously does... " Incorrect .
There is almost nothing at JPL that gets into the classified category .
I 'm not sure how " sensitive " is defined , but the biggest deal at JPL would be making sure that export controls are observed and that ITAR rules [ wikipedia.org ] are followed ( almost anything can be considered 'arms ' by the government ) .
Reasonable restrictions , but it 's not the top-secret place you seem to think it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Sorry, but if you work for ANYTHING that even remotely reaches a sensitive/classified nature, which JPL obviously does..."
 
Incorrect.
There is almost nothing at JPL that gets into the classified category.
I'm not sure how "sensitive" is defined, but the biggest deal at JPL would be making sure that export controls are observed and that ITAR rules [wikipedia.org] are followed (almost anything can be considered 'arms' by the government).
Reasonable restrictions, but it's not the top-secret place you seem to think it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237227</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237077</id>
	<title>Re:Don't breakout the champagne yet</title>
	<author>AuMatar</author>
	<datestamp>1244288520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because it hears more cases than any other circuit, having the largest population (the entire west coast).  It has almost 20\% of the caseload of the US.  By percentage of cases overturned it ranks slightly better than average.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because it hears more cases than any other circuit , having the largest population ( the entire west coast ) .
It has almost 20 \ % of the caseload of the US .
By percentage of cases overturned it ranks slightly better than average .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because it hears more cases than any other circuit, having the largest population (the entire west coast).
It has almost 20\% of the caseload of the US.
By percentage of cases overturned it ranks slightly better than average.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28240655</id>
	<title>Re:What about private companies?</title>
	<author>teridon</author>
	<datestamp>1244381220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they need a NASA badge, then they are subject to the same security check.</p><p>Whether they need a NASA badge depends on a bunch of factors, among them:<br>1)  Frequency of center access  -- if they work off-site 99\% of the time then they probably don't need a badge).  Conversely, if they work on site frequently, then they need a badge<br>2)  Need for network access to NASA resources --  Some of the more secure ones require a NASA identity (in the NASA directory), but not necessarily a badge.  At some point the badge will be a "smart" card you will need to insert in order to access network resources.</p><p>Disclaimer:  I work for a NASA contractor, but I don't speak for NASA, my employer, or anyone else.  Well, except for my dog -- she can't type.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they need a NASA badge , then they are subject to the same security check.Whether they need a NASA badge depends on a bunch of factors , among them : 1 ) Frequency of center access -- if they work off-site 99 \ % of the time then they probably do n't need a badge ) .
Conversely , if they work on site frequently , then they need a badge2 ) Need for network access to NASA resources -- Some of the more secure ones require a NASA identity ( in the NASA directory ) , but not necessarily a badge .
At some point the badge will be a " smart " card you will need to insert in order to access network resources.Disclaimer : I work for a NASA contractor , but I do n't speak for NASA , my employer , or anyone else .
Well , except for my dog -- she ca n't type .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they need a NASA badge, then they are subject to the same security check.Whether they need a NASA badge depends on a bunch of factors, among them:1)  Frequency of center access  -- if they work off-site 99\% of the time then they probably don't need a badge).
Conversely, if they work on site frequently, then they need a badge2)  Need for network access to NASA resources --  Some of the more secure ones require a NASA identity (in the NASA directory), but not necessarily a badge.
At some point the badge will be a "smart" card you will need to insert in order to access network resources.Disclaimer:  I work for a NASA contractor, but I don't speak for NASA, my employer, or anyone else.
Well, except for my dog -- she can't type.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28242395</id>
	<title>Re:FFRDC</title>
	<author>bitingduck</author>
	<datestamp>1244398980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Additionally, Department of Energy operates a bunch of FFRDCs and they developed a much more rational response to HSPD-12.  People who have a secret or higher clearance get the PIV badge that requires the investigation, but because they have a clearance they've already had it.  People who don't have or need a clearance get a site-local badge that doesn't require the whole investigation thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Additionally , Department of Energy operates a bunch of FFRDCs and they developed a much more rational response to HSPD-12 .
People who have a secret or higher clearance get the PIV badge that requires the investigation , but because they have a clearance they 've already had it .
People who do n't have or need a clearance get a site-local badge that does n't require the whole investigation thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Additionally, Department of Energy operates a bunch of FFRDCs and they developed a much more rational response to HSPD-12.
People who have a secret or higher clearance get the PIV badge that requires the investigation, but because they have a clearance they've already had it.
People who don't have or need a clearance get a site-local badge that doesn't require the whole investigation thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28239497</id>
	<title>Re:There are Constitutional rights here</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1244316060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>On good days, yes. On bad days, we have a history of 100 years of legal slavery, Herbert Hoover's use of the FBI for political abuse, the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during World War II for the simple act of having Japanese ancestors, the McCarthy era witch-hunt for communists, illegal tapping of the fiber-optic backbone of AT&amp;T by the National Security Agency with the granting of retroactive immunity from prosecution for the criminals involved, and Guantanamo Bay.

The Constition provides useful guidelines, but there are far too many cases where it has been ignored wholesale by individuals or entire departments of the federal government. Much of it has been discarded over the last decade in the name of the "war on terrorism", just as it was ignored by previous presidents for the "war on drugs" and other oddness.

Vote, campaign, commit civil disobedience if necessary: we're fortunate that our system allows dissent, but should not be complacent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On good days , yes .
On bad days , we have a history of 100 years of legal slavery , Herbert Hoover 's use of the FBI for political abuse , the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during World War II for the simple act of having Japanese ancestors , the McCarthy era witch-hunt for communists , illegal tapping of the fiber-optic backbone of AT&amp;T by the National Security Agency with the granting of retroactive immunity from prosecution for the criminals involved , and Guantanamo Bay .
The Constition provides useful guidelines , but there are far too many cases where it has been ignored wholesale by individuals or entire departments of the federal government .
Much of it has been discarded over the last decade in the name of the " war on terrorism " , just as it was ignored by previous presidents for the " war on drugs " and other oddness .
Vote , campaign , commit civil disobedience if necessary : we 're fortunate that our system allows dissent , but should not be complacent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On good days, yes.
On bad days, we have a history of 100 years of legal slavery, Herbert Hoover's use of the FBI for political abuse, the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during World War II for the simple act of having Japanese ancestors, the McCarthy era witch-hunt for communists, illegal tapping of the fiber-optic backbone of AT&amp;T by the National Security Agency with the granting of retroactive immunity from prosecution for the criminals involved, and Guantanamo Bay.
The Constition provides useful guidelines, but there are far too many cases where it has been ignored wholesale by individuals or entire departments of the federal government.
Much of it has been discarded over the last decade in the name of the "war on terrorism", just as it was ignored by previous presidents for the "war on drugs" and other oddness.
Vote, campaign, commit civil disobedience if necessary: we're fortunate that our system allows dissent, but should not be complacent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238279</id>
	<title>Re:Linked article isn't accurate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244300040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who does security investigations varies. DoD  security investigations are done by commercial company that has 'agents'  (contractors) that have the authority to conduct security investigations and nothing else.  I don't remember when the company was formed, at one time the security investigations were done by the government, but at some point over the last 20 years it was converted into a commercial entity.<br>OPM (office of personnel management) has some responsibilities, and the FBI does them for Presidential appointees.<br>NASA? Who knows? They could contract it out to Blackwater or some other group for all I know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who does security investigations varies .
DoD security investigations are done by commercial company that has 'agents ' ( contractors ) that have the authority to conduct security investigations and nothing else .
I do n't remember when the company was formed , at one time the security investigations were done by the government , but at some point over the last 20 years it was converted into a commercial entity.OPM ( office of personnel management ) has some responsibilities , and the FBI does them for Presidential appointees.NASA ?
Who knows ?
They could contract it out to Blackwater or some other group for all I know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who does security investigations varies.
DoD  security investigations are done by commercial company that has 'agents'  (contractors) that have the authority to conduct security investigations and nothing else.
I don't remember when the company was formed, at one time the security investigations were done by the government, but at some point over the last 20 years it was converted into a commercial entity.OPM (office of personnel management) has some responsibilities, and the FBI does them for Presidential appointees.NASA?
Who knows?
They could contract it out to Blackwater or some other group for all I know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28242483</id>
	<title>Re:Expect retaliation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244399520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In this case it depends on where you are in the organization-- there is/was a huge amount of support for the lawsuit, even though the number of plaintiffs was small.  People with management paths that opposed the investigations didn't really get bothered at all aside from the official threats that the managers were required to pass along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this case it depends on where you are in the organization-- there is/was a huge amount of support for the lawsuit , even though the number of plaintiffs was small .
People with management paths that opposed the investigations did n't really get bothered at all aside from the official threats that the managers were required to pass along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this case it depends on where you are in the organization-- there is/was a huge amount of support for the lawsuit, even though the number of plaintiffs was small.
People with management paths that opposed the investigations didn't really get bothered at all aside from the official threats that the managers were required to pass along.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238941</id>
	<title>9th court, eh</title>
	<author>noshellswill</author>
	<datestamp>1244307360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then shag the bastards there are only nine of them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then shag the bastards there are only nine of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then shag the bastards there are only nine of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28240873</id>
	<title>JPL isn't NASA</title>
	<author>Overzeetop</author>
	<datestamp>1244384820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>JPL actually isn't a NASA (federal government owned) installation. It's CalTech operating for-profit as a contractor to NASA. The only actual government jobs at "JPL" are the contract administrators and some management types.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>JPL actually is n't a NASA ( federal government owned ) installation .
It 's CalTech operating for-profit as a contractor to NASA .
The only actual government jobs at " JPL " are the contract administrators and some management types .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>JPL actually isn't a NASA (federal government owned) installation.
It's CalTech operating for-profit as a contractor to NASA.
The only actual government jobs at "JPL" are the contract administrators and some management types.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236881</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236867</id>
	<title>They're smoking that wacky weed again.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244286240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was settled a long time ago. It's government business on government property. You have the right to go work somewhere else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was settled a long time ago .
It 's government business on government property .
You have the right to go work somewhere else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was settled a long time ago.
It's government business on government property.
You have the right to go work somewhere else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236857</id>
	<title>Do you suffer from Anal Poo?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244286120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stand up and be counted. Thousands of Americans daily suffer from Anal Poo, a treatable condition caused by Italians. They suffer in silence because of the stigma attached to being the innocent victims of nefarious Italian influences. Anal Poo is treatable. There is hope. Stand up, stand together and be counted. Ask your doctor about Flixomax SE (tm). Say "good-bye" to Anal Poo and Italians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stand up and be counted .
Thousands of Americans daily suffer from Anal Poo , a treatable condition caused by Italians .
They suffer in silence because of the stigma attached to being the innocent victims of nefarious Italian influences .
Anal Poo is treatable .
There is hope .
Stand up , stand together and be counted .
Ask your doctor about Flixomax SE ( tm ) .
Say " good-bye " to Anal Poo and Italians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stand up and be counted.
Thousands of Americans daily suffer from Anal Poo, a treatable condition caused by Italians.
They suffer in silence because of the stigma attached to being the innocent victims of nefarious Italian influences.
Anal Poo is treatable.
There is hope.
Stand up, stand together and be counted.
Ask your doctor about Flixomax SE (tm).
Say "good-bye" to Anal Poo and Italians.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236869</id>
	<title>Expect retaliation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244286240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whistle-blowers get protection from retaliation, but you know anyone who complained about this policy probably doesn't have friends in high places.  Anyone who complains can expect their career to stagnate or progress slower than it would have if they had said nothing.</p><p>Such is the way with large employers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whistle-blowers get protection from retaliation , but you know anyone who complained about this policy probably does n't have friends in high places .
Anyone who complains can expect their career to stagnate or progress slower than it would have if they had said nothing.Such is the way with large employers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whistle-blowers get protection from retaliation, but you know anyone who complained about this policy probably doesn't have friends in high places.
Anyone who complains can expect their career to stagnate or progress slower than it would have if they had said nothing.Such is the way with large employers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28240345</id>
	<title>Re:They're smoking that wacky weed again.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244376600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's called "Tard Grass" and there's nothing wrong with it, JACKASS!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called " Tard Grass " and there 's nothing wrong with it , JACKASS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called "Tard Grass" and there's nothing wrong with it, JACKASS!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237321</id>
	<title>Re:Linked article isn't accurate</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1244290920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On top of all this, these background checks are labour intensive because they require federal agents to interview people who know you and collect personal information about you.</p></div><p>Indeed, we are already seeing the results of over-investigation.</p><p><i>87 percent of the 3,500 initial top-secret security clearance cases Defense approved last year were missing at least one interview or important record.</i><br><a href="http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=4104591" title="federaltimes.com">Security clearances: Faked investigations mount as deadlines tighten </a> [federaltimes.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On top of all this , these background checks are labour intensive because they require federal agents to interview people who know you and collect personal information about you.Indeed , we are already seeing the results of over-investigation.87 percent of the 3,500 initial top-secret security clearance cases Defense approved last year were missing at least one interview or important record.Security clearances : Faked investigations mount as deadlines tighten [ federaltimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On top of all this, these background checks are labour intensive because they require federal agents to interview people who know you and collect personal information about you.Indeed, we are already seeing the results of over-investigation.87 percent of the 3,500 initial top-secret security clearance cases Defense approved last year were missing at least one interview or important record.Security clearances: Faked investigations mount as deadlines tighten  [federaltimes.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237021</id>
	<title>Re:They're smoking that wacky weed again.</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1244287860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fix your fucking code! If you guys have time to post news, you've got time to fix code.</p><p>I don't know what you guys are doing, but you've made it worse.</p><p>Your code is now causing Firefox to lockup, requiring a reboot of the browser. This is on top of the UI graphics being scattered all over hell and back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fix your fucking code !
If you guys have time to post news , you 've got time to fix code.I do n't know what you guys are doing , but you 've made it worse.Your code is now causing Firefox to lockup , requiring a reboot of the browser .
This is on top of the UI graphics being scattered all over hell and back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fix your fucking code!
If you guys have time to post news, you've got time to fix code.I don't know what you guys are doing, but you've made it worse.Your code is now causing Firefox to lockup, requiring a reboot of the browser.
This is on top of the UI graphics being scattered all over hell and back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236867</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237157</id>
	<title>A sample of the background check</title>
	<author>losttoy</author>
	<datestamp>1244289180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-rutten6-2009jun06,0,7067783.column" title="latimes.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-rutten6-2009jun06,0,7067783.column</a> [latimes.com] <br> <br>

<i>"As The Times noted in January of last year, the government demanded that the scientists fill out questionnaires on their personal lives and waive the privacy of their financial, medical and psychiatric records. The government also wanted permission to gather information about them by interviewing third parties. At one point, JPL's internal website posted an "issue characterization chart" -- since taken down -- that indicated the snoops would be looking for a "pattern of irresponsibility as reflected in credit history<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... sodomy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... incest<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... abusive language<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... unlawful assembly." It also said homosexuality could be a security issue under some circumstances."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-rutten6-2009jun06,0,7067783.column [ latimes.com ] " As The Times noted in January of last year , the government demanded that the scientists fill out questionnaires on their personal lives and waive the privacy of their financial , medical and psychiatric records .
The government also wanted permission to gather information about them by interviewing third parties .
At one point , JPL 's internal website posted an " issue characterization chart " -- since taken down -- that indicated the snoops would be looking for a " pattern of irresponsibility as reflected in credit history ... sodomy ... incest ... abusive language ... unlawful assembly .
" It also said homosexuality could be a security issue under some circumstances .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-rutten6-2009jun06,0,7067783.column [latimes.com]  

"As The Times noted in January of last year, the government demanded that the scientists fill out questionnaires on their personal lives and waive the privacy of their financial, medical and psychiatric records.
The government also wanted permission to gather information about them by interviewing third parties.
At one point, JPL's internal website posted an "issue characterization chart" -- since taken down -- that indicated the snoops would be looking for a "pattern of irresponsibility as reflected in credit history ... sodomy ... incest ... abusive language ... unlawful assembly.
" It also said homosexuality could be a security issue under some circumstances.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237097</id>
	<title>Linked article isn't accurate</title>
	<author>losttoy</author>
	<datestamp>1244288700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The report in the linked article from networkworld is not accurate. Quote from the article "The stink stems from HSPD #12 which is in part aimed at gathering information to develop a common identification standard that ensures that people are who they say they are, so government facilities and sensitive information stored in networks remains protected."<br> <br>

A close friend is one of the Caltech (technically, he is a contractor at JPL) employees who sued the Federal government. Caltech manages the JPL labs for the federal government. After 9/11, the Bush administration passed this directive to subject federal employees and contractors, working on sensitive and non-sensitive matters to the same invasive background checks. These background checks do not have a set standard or criteria for evaluation, are not disclosed and can affect your employment (read termination). This means that if someone who knows you, when interviewed, says he/she thinks you did pot, that's it, you can be terminated. <br> <br>

To subject federal employees and contractors who are working on confidential/sensitive projects is one thing although still not fair but it is completely unfair to subject employees or contractors working on non-sensitive projects to such arbitrary background checks. <br> <br>

As they say, devil lies in the details. The presidential directive itself does not require background checks. What is requires is that all employees and contracts, irrespective of the nature of work, have to be issued a standard identification card for entering federal facilities. Sounds fair, right? The rub is that to be issued this card, you must pass the background check. So by mandating a standard identification card, the government has mandated all employees and contractors be subjected to background checks. And this is what this group of 30 or so JPL/Caltech scientists are protesting.<br> <br>



On top of all this, these background checks are labour intensive because they require federal agents to interview people who know you and collect personal information about you. Another friend who worked for PG&amp;E waited 3 months to enter the facility he was supposed to work at because the feds could not finish his background check soon enough. Imagine if thousands of other employees or contractors are subjected to this new directive? The quality of these checks is directly proportional to the number of federal agents who do this work and we all know that the number of experienced federal agents is not going to quadruple overnight. So the end result is going to be dilution in the quality of these checks which then defeats the intent and purpose of these checks.
<br> <br>


Phew!! My longest post on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. but no wonder that the government always screws up!!</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The report in the linked article from networkworld is not accurate .
Quote from the article " The stink stems from HSPD # 12 which is in part aimed at gathering information to develop a common identification standard that ensures that people are who they say they are , so government facilities and sensitive information stored in networks remains protected .
" A close friend is one of the Caltech ( technically , he is a contractor at JPL ) employees who sued the Federal government .
Caltech manages the JPL labs for the federal government .
After 9/11 , the Bush administration passed this directive to subject federal employees and contractors , working on sensitive and non-sensitive matters to the same invasive background checks .
These background checks do not have a set standard or criteria for evaluation , are not disclosed and can affect your employment ( read termination ) .
This means that if someone who knows you , when interviewed , says he/she thinks you did pot , that 's it , you can be terminated .
To subject federal employees and contractors who are working on confidential/sensitive projects is one thing although still not fair but it is completely unfair to subject employees or contractors working on non-sensitive projects to such arbitrary background checks .
As they say , devil lies in the details .
The presidential directive itself does not require background checks .
What is requires is that all employees and contracts , irrespective of the nature of work , have to be issued a standard identification card for entering federal facilities .
Sounds fair , right ?
The rub is that to be issued this card , you must pass the background check .
So by mandating a standard identification card , the government has mandated all employees and contractors be subjected to background checks .
And this is what this group of 30 or so JPL/Caltech scientists are protesting .
On top of all this , these background checks are labour intensive because they require federal agents to interview people who know you and collect personal information about you .
Another friend who worked for PG&amp;E waited 3 months to enter the facility he was supposed to work at because the feds could not finish his background check soon enough .
Imagine if thousands of other employees or contractors are subjected to this new directive ?
The quality of these checks is directly proportional to the number of federal agents who do this work and we all know that the number of experienced federal agents is not going to quadruple overnight .
So the end result is going to be dilution in the quality of these checks which then defeats the intent and purpose of these checks .
Phew ! ! My longest post on / .
but no wonder that the government always screws up !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The report in the linked article from networkworld is not accurate.
Quote from the article "The stink stems from HSPD #12 which is in part aimed at gathering information to develop a common identification standard that ensures that people are who they say they are, so government facilities and sensitive information stored in networks remains protected.
" 

A close friend is one of the Caltech (technically, he is a contractor at JPL) employees who sued the Federal government.
Caltech manages the JPL labs for the federal government.
After 9/11, the Bush administration passed this directive to subject federal employees and contractors, working on sensitive and non-sensitive matters to the same invasive background checks.
These background checks do not have a set standard or criteria for evaluation, are not disclosed and can affect your employment (read termination).
This means that if someone who knows you, when interviewed, says he/she thinks you did pot, that's it, you can be terminated.
To subject federal employees and contractors who are working on confidential/sensitive projects is one thing although still not fair but it is completely unfair to subject employees or contractors working on non-sensitive projects to such arbitrary background checks.
As they say, devil lies in the details.
The presidential directive itself does not require background checks.
What is requires is that all employees and contracts, irrespective of the nature of work, have to be issued a standard identification card for entering federal facilities.
Sounds fair, right?
The rub is that to be issued this card, you must pass the background check.
So by mandating a standard identification card, the government has mandated all employees and contractors be subjected to background checks.
And this is what this group of 30 or so JPL/Caltech scientists are protesting.
On top of all this, these background checks are labour intensive because they require federal agents to interview people who know you and collect personal information about you.
Another friend who worked for PG&amp;E waited 3 months to enter the facility he was supposed to work at because the feds could not finish his background check soon enough.
Imagine if thousands of other employees or contractors are subjected to this new directive?
The quality of these checks is directly proportional to the number of federal agents who do this work and we all know that the number of experienced federal agents is not going to quadruple overnight.
So the end result is going to be dilution in the quality of these checks which then defeats the intent and purpose of these checks.
Phew!! My longest post on /.
but no wonder that the government always screws up!
!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28240057</id>
	<title>Re:Of interest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244370780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Background checks are nothing new, but it used to be the employee would do  the actual leg work, and produce documents  showing the result and usually only to HR.  A CPIC background check for example, or driving abstract.  There was no need to authorize anyone to access your private information, let alone extend such authorization indefinitely which is the case now.</p><p>Even  applying to international companies with the US Government as a customer, are being forced to have these stupid searches done.  RIM for example uses american-background.com and you are forced to either allow them full access to everything, or you do not get the position.</p><p>With American Background, they are very careful in how they pursue (or persuade) information they know is not legally required, or legal for them to even ask.  Social Insurance number, drivers license number / photo copy and even what you filed on your income tax (they request a fax of the assessment) for example -- This was NOT even for security clearance  but basic background check.  If you question anything however, their first response is a threat to tell your employer that you're refusing.  Even if what they're asking is illegal.</p><p>You further have no legal right apparently to request your information be purged.  All documents are faxed to their office in Virginia, and are kept forever regardless of if you are accepted to the position or not.</p><p>Someday I'll post recordings I have of the calls with them because they really are amusing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Background checks are nothing new , but it used to be the employee would do the actual leg work , and produce documents showing the result and usually only to HR .
A CPIC background check for example , or driving abstract .
There was no need to authorize anyone to access your private information , let alone extend such authorization indefinitely which is the case now.Even applying to international companies with the US Government as a customer , are being forced to have these stupid searches done .
RIM for example uses american-background.com and you are forced to either allow them full access to everything , or you do not get the position.With American Background , they are very careful in how they pursue ( or persuade ) information they know is not legally required , or legal for them to even ask .
Social Insurance number , drivers license number / photo copy and even what you filed on your income tax ( they request a fax of the assessment ) for example -- This was NOT even for security clearance but basic background check .
If you question anything however , their first response is a threat to tell your employer that you 're refusing .
Even if what they 're asking is illegal.You further have no legal right apparently to request your information be purged .
All documents are faxed to their office in Virginia , and are kept forever regardless of if you are accepted to the position or not.Someday I 'll post recordings I have of the calls with them because they really are amusing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Background checks are nothing new, but it used to be the employee would do  the actual leg work, and produce documents  showing the result and usually only to HR.
A CPIC background check for example, or driving abstract.
There was no need to authorize anyone to access your private information, let alone extend such authorization indefinitely which is the case now.Even  applying to international companies with the US Government as a customer, are being forced to have these stupid searches done.
RIM for example uses american-background.com and you are forced to either allow them full access to everything, or you do not get the position.With American Background, they are very careful in how they pursue (or persuade) information they know is not legally required, or legal for them to even ask.
Social Insurance number, drivers license number / photo copy and even what you filed on your income tax (they request a fax of the assessment) for example -- This was NOT even for security clearance  but basic background check.
If you question anything however, their first response is a threat to tell your employer that you're refusing.
Even if what they're asking is illegal.You further have no legal right apparently to request your information be purged.
All documents are faxed to their office in Virginia, and are kept forever regardless of if you are accepted to the position or not.Someday I'll post recordings I have of the calls with them because they really are amusing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236903</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28242483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28239497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28240655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28250873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28240873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28240057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28239115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28284631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28240425
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28240345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28240685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28242395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_06_2147233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_2147233.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238153
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_2147233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28240873
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28250873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28240425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28240655
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_2147233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28242483
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_2147233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28240685
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_2147233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237757
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_2147233.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238063
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28242395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28240345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236995
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237517
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237619
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28239497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238173
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_2147233.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238385
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_2147233.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_2147233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238135
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_2147233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236919
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_2147233.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237193
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_2147233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28239115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237773
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28238009
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28284631
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_2147233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28236903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28240057
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_2147233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237061
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_06_2147233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_06_2147233.28237999
</commentlist>
</conversation>
