<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_15_1459225</id>
	<title>The "Hidden" Cost Of Privacy</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1245085020000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Schneier points out an article from a while back in Forbes about the <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/06/the\_hidden\_cost.html">"hidden" cost of privacy</a> and how expensive it can be to comply with all the various overlapping privacy laws that don't necessarily improve anyone's privacy.  <i>"What this all means is that protecting individual privacy remains an externality for many companies, and that basic market dynamics won't work to solve the problem. Because the efficient market solution won't work, we're left with inefficient regulatory solutions. So now the question becomes: how do we make regulation as efficient as possible?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Schneier points out an article from a while back in Forbes about the " hidden " cost of privacy and how expensive it can be to comply with all the various overlapping privacy laws that do n't necessarily improve anyone 's privacy .
" What this all means is that protecting individual privacy remains an externality for many companies , and that basic market dynamics wo n't work to solve the problem .
Because the efficient market solution wo n't work , we 're left with inefficient regulatory solutions .
So now the question becomes : how do we make regulation as efficient as possible ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Schneier points out an article from a while back in Forbes about the "hidden" cost of privacy and how expensive it can be to comply with all the various overlapping privacy laws that don't necessarily improve anyone's privacy.
"What this all means is that protecting individual privacy remains an externality for many companies, and that basic market dynamics won't work to solve the problem.
Because the efficient market solution won't work, we're left with inefficient regulatory solutions.
So now the question becomes: how do we make regulation as efficient as possible?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337181</id>
	<title>Schneier the capitalist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245089580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I see that Bruce Schneier has been indoctrinated into the "capitalism is most efficient" cult, just like every other American.</p><p>Newsflash - there's no such thing as an "efficient" market, and capitalism is never sustainable over the long term. Markets must be managed by a strong central regulatory authority.</p><p>So American's were completely brainwashed by the Reagan years, it's hilarious. Free markets are efficient! BAHAHAHA</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I see that Bruce Schneier has been indoctrinated into the " capitalism is most efficient " cult , just like every other American.Newsflash - there 's no such thing as an " efficient " market , and capitalism is never sustainable over the long term .
Markets must be managed by a strong central regulatory authority.So American 's were completely brainwashed by the Reagan years , it 's hilarious .
Free markets are efficient !
BAHAHAHA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I see that Bruce Schneier has been indoctrinated into the "capitalism is most efficient" cult, just like every other American.Newsflash - there's no such thing as an "efficient" market, and capitalism is never sustainable over the long term.
Markets must be managed by a strong central regulatory authority.So American's were completely brainwashed by the Reagan years, it's hilarious.
Free markets are efficient!
BAHAHAHA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28343775</id>
	<title>Solution</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1245081720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thou shall upon calling someone for the purposes of solicitation declair immediately, "This call is a solicitation."</p><p>Upon that declariation thou shall speak unto the individual thou hast called the source from which ye came about the person you have called.</p><p>Once declaired thou shalt state the full legal business name thou doth represent along with your full legal name. If thou is not apt to divulge you full legal name then thou hast no business in calling complete strangers.</p><p>Once thou hast declair all of that you may then ask the called person if they are busy and if you can have a moment of their time.</p><p>If the individual you have called says yes you may proceed.</p><p>If not, or at the end of the call thou shall ask if the person you have called would like to remain on your list and if not be removed immediately with a letter, hand signed and dated by the caller indicating that the person who hast been called has been removed from the calling list.</p><p>Let it be know that under no circumstance, save goverment use for emergency purposes only, shall a pre-recorded message be used.</p><p>If thou fails in this creed let ye be gutted and left for the vultures or any other carnivorious scavangers that be appropriate to ye homeland! AS well as a fine of no less then $141,391,222 USD per incident (We are using RIAA calculations based on the average length of a song compared to a solicitation call time.) or $4000 per second, which ever is greater.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thou shall upon calling someone for the purposes of solicitation declair immediately , " This call is a solicitation .
" Upon that declariation thou shall speak unto the individual thou hast called the source from which ye came about the person you have called.Once declaired thou shalt state the full legal business name thou doth represent along with your full legal name .
If thou is not apt to divulge you full legal name then thou hast no business in calling complete strangers.Once thou hast declair all of that you may then ask the called person if they are busy and if you can have a moment of their time.If the individual you have called says yes you may proceed.If not , or at the end of the call thou shall ask if the person you have called would like to remain on your list and if not be removed immediately with a letter , hand signed and dated by the caller indicating that the person who hast been called has been removed from the calling list.Let it be know that under no circumstance , save goverment use for emergency purposes only , shall a pre-recorded message be used.If thou fails in this creed let ye be gutted and left for the vultures or any other carnivorious scavangers that be appropriate to ye homeland !
AS well as a fine of no less then $ 141,391,222 USD per incident ( We are using RIAA calculations based on the average length of a song compared to a solicitation call time .
) or $ 4000 per second , which ever is greater .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thou shall upon calling someone for the purposes of solicitation declair immediately, "This call is a solicitation.
"Upon that declariation thou shall speak unto the individual thou hast called the source from which ye came about the person you have called.Once declaired thou shalt state the full legal business name thou doth represent along with your full legal name.
If thou is not apt to divulge you full legal name then thou hast no business in calling complete strangers.Once thou hast declair all of that you may then ask the called person if they are busy and if you can have a moment of their time.If the individual you have called says yes you may proceed.If not, or at the end of the call thou shall ask if the person you have called would like to remain on your list and if not be removed immediately with a letter, hand signed and dated by the caller indicating that the person who hast been called has been removed from the calling list.Let it be know that under no circumstance, save goverment use for emergency purposes only, shall a pre-recorded message be used.If thou fails in this creed let ye be gutted and left for the vultures or any other carnivorious scavangers that be appropriate to ye homeland!
AS well as a fine of no less then $141,391,222 USD per incident (We are using RIAA calculations based on the average length of a song compared to a solicitation call time.
) or $4000 per second, which ever is greater.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337495</id>
	<title>Better Regulation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245090900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because as we've seen with healthcare, sometimes the free market simply does not work for a particular area.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because as we 've seen with healthcare , sometimes the free market simply does not work for a particular area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because as we've seen with healthcare, sometimes the free market simply does not work for a particular area.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337599</id>
	<title>Re:Begging the proposition.</title>
	<author>OzPeter</author>
	<datestamp>1245091380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's funny that one could look at this and say the markets don't work.  The markets ARE working and that most people don't actually care about privacy.</p></div><p>The problem with your statement is that markets only work when there is freely available knowledge.  In the case of privacy, I would say that the markets are "working" not because people don't care, but rather that they don't know.  So it is not really a free market scenario that they are entering into.</p><p>
If I offered you a service and didn't mention the punch in the head I would also give you, then are you taking up that service because you don't care about being punched in the head?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny that one could look at this and say the markets do n't work .
The markets ARE working and that most people do n't actually care about privacy.The problem with your statement is that markets only work when there is freely available knowledge .
In the case of privacy , I would say that the markets are " working " not because people do n't care , but rather that they do n't know .
So it is not really a free market scenario that they are entering into .
If I offered you a service and did n't mention the punch in the head I would also give you , then are you taking up that service because you do n't care about being punched in the head ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny that one could look at this and say the markets don't work.
The markets ARE working and that most people don't actually care about privacy.The problem with your statement is that markets only work when there is freely available knowledge.
In the case of privacy, I would say that the markets are "working" not because people don't care, but rather that they don't know.
So it is not really a free market scenario that they are entering into.
If I offered you a service and didn't mention the punch in the head I would also give you, then are you taking up that service because you don't care about being punched in the head?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28339091</id>
	<title>Re:Pure bullshit</title>
	<author>davecb</author>
	<datestamp>1245097380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article "begs the question": in the
process of asking it, they insert their conclusions, and then ask us to accept that in our answer.

</p><p>The classic example is "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

</p><p>Whe you see one of these, be aware the
author is up to something...

</p><p>--dave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article " begs the question " : in the process of asking it , they insert their conclusions , and then ask us to accept that in our answer .
The classic example is " Have you stopped beating your wife ?
" Whe you see one of these , be aware the author is up to something.. . --dave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article "begs the question": in the
process of asking it, they insert their conclusions, and then ask us to accept that in our answer.
The classic example is "Have you stopped beating your wife?
"

Whe you see one of these, be aware the
author is up to something...

--dave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28343673</id>
	<title>Re:Pure bullshit</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1245080580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I see rationalization for government and business intrusion into private lives.  90\% of the information requested and/or demanded by any given government agency or business is totally unnecessary.  It is none of my phone company's business how many people live in the house, or might use the phone.  It is none of my ISP's business how many computers I own, or how many of them might connect through the gateway, or even HOW they might connect.  The government's preoccupation with the precise identification leads to requirements for fingerprints, DNA samples, and more. I once ordered a pizza, in person, with cash in hand, and the cashier insisted that she needed my phone number and address!!  The stupid broad doesn't even need to know my NAME to trade a pizza for a twenty dollar bill!</p><p>In the article, a baker was entrusted with financial information of her clients.  HOW FREAKING BOGUS!!  To bake a wedding cake does NOT require storing my credit card information, or any other personal details.</p><p>Totally unnecessary information is harvested for the most trivial dealings.  And, it's WRONG.</p><p>No government agency, and no business should request information that is not absolutely essential to perform the business at hand.  Nor should they request any more information than they are willing and capable of storing in a SECURE manner.  It is their RESPONSIBILITY to safeguard that information, it isn't some "expense", or an "option", it shouldn't be considered a "burden".  If and when safeguarding information becomes an "expense", then it should be obvious that they are collecting unnecessary and trivial information.</p><p>TFA is bogus rationalization, and an attempt to get people to sympathize with some perceived need to dump privacy laws.  Forbes and Lee Gomes should be slapped silly for even writing and printing the article.</p></div><p>Nonsense. They need to show the credit card company due dilligence that they protected customer's credit card payment. In the event of fraud they must produce a record of when the card was used, where it was used, and who took the card.</p><p>Without evidence you are not getting a conviction. No data retention, no evidence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see rationalization for government and business intrusion into private lives .
90 \ % of the information requested and/or demanded by any given government agency or business is totally unnecessary .
It is none of my phone company 's business how many people live in the house , or might use the phone .
It is none of my ISP 's business how many computers I own , or how many of them might connect through the gateway , or even HOW they might connect .
The government 's preoccupation with the precise identification leads to requirements for fingerprints , DNA samples , and more .
I once ordered a pizza , in person , with cash in hand , and the cashier insisted that she needed my phone number and address ! !
The stupid broad does n't even need to know my NAME to trade a pizza for a twenty dollar bill ! In the article , a baker was entrusted with financial information of her clients .
HOW FREAKING BOGUS ! !
To bake a wedding cake does NOT require storing my credit card information , or any other personal details.Totally unnecessary information is harvested for the most trivial dealings .
And , it 's WRONG.No government agency , and no business should request information that is not absolutely essential to perform the business at hand .
Nor should they request any more information than they are willing and capable of storing in a SECURE manner .
It is their RESPONSIBILITY to safeguard that information , it is n't some " expense " , or an " option " , it should n't be considered a " burden " .
If and when safeguarding information becomes an " expense " , then it should be obvious that they are collecting unnecessary and trivial information.TFA is bogus rationalization , and an attempt to get people to sympathize with some perceived need to dump privacy laws .
Forbes and Lee Gomes should be slapped silly for even writing and printing the article.Nonsense .
They need to show the credit card company due dilligence that they protected customer 's credit card payment .
In the event of fraud they must produce a record of when the card was used , where it was used , and who took the card.Without evidence you are not getting a conviction .
No data retention , no evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see rationalization for government and business intrusion into private lives.
90\% of the information requested and/or demanded by any given government agency or business is totally unnecessary.
It is none of my phone company's business how many people live in the house, or might use the phone.
It is none of my ISP's business how many computers I own, or how many of them might connect through the gateway, or even HOW they might connect.
The government's preoccupation with the precise identification leads to requirements for fingerprints, DNA samples, and more.
I once ordered a pizza, in person, with cash in hand, and the cashier insisted that she needed my phone number and address!!
The stupid broad doesn't even need to know my NAME to trade a pizza for a twenty dollar bill!In the article, a baker was entrusted with financial information of her clients.
HOW FREAKING BOGUS!!
To bake a wedding cake does NOT require storing my credit card information, or any other personal details.Totally unnecessary information is harvested for the most trivial dealings.
And, it's WRONG.No government agency, and no business should request information that is not absolutely essential to perform the business at hand.
Nor should they request any more information than they are willing and capable of storing in a SECURE manner.
It is their RESPONSIBILITY to safeguard that information, it isn't some "expense", or an "option", it shouldn't be considered a "burden".
If and when safeguarding information becomes an "expense", then it should be obvious that they are collecting unnecessary and trivial information.TFA is bogus rationalization, and an attempt to get people to sympathize with some perceived need to dump privacy laws.
Forbes and Lee Gomes should be slapped silly for even writing and printing the article.Nonsense.
They need to show the credit card company due dilligence that they protected customer's credit card payment.
In the event of fraud they must produce a record of when the card was used, where it was used, and who took the card.Without evidence you are not getting a conviction.
No data retention, no evidence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28336997</id>
	<title>Here's how:</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1245088620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Fake own death<br>
2. ???<br>
3. Private!</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Fake own death 2 .
? ? ? 3 .
Private !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Fake own death
2.
???
3.
Private!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337569</id>
	<title>Stop collecting unnecessary information</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1245091200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If a company wants to reduce its costs for protecting private information, <i>stop collecting the damn stuff in the first place</i>. As a recent example, why do I need to register at a website just to listen to a few bird call recordings? Or give my (fictitious) name and address just to read an article?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a company wants to reduce its costs for protecting private information , stop collecting the damn stuff in the first place .
As a recent example , why do I need to register at a website just to listen to a few bird call recordings ?
Or give my ( fictitious ) name and address just to read an article ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a company wants to reduce its costs for protecting private information, stop collecting the damn stuff in the first place.
As a recent example, why do I need to register at a website just to listen to a few bird call recordings?
Or give my (fictitious) name and address just to read an article?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28338869</id>
	<title>Bottom Line</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245096720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like the fourth solution offered in the article (regarding corporate behavior):</p><p>"4. Penalties for bad behavior need to be expensive enough to make good behavior the rational choice."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the fourth solution offered in the article ( regarding corporate behavior ) : " 4 .
Penalties for bad behavior need to be expensive enough to make good behavior the rational choice .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the fourth solution offered in the article (regarding corporate behavior):"4.
Penalties for bad behavior need to be expensive enough to make good behavior the rational choice.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28341731</id>
	<title>Re:CISP\HIPPA Compliancy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245066000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess I don't get it because CISP really represents what you need to do to keep credit card data secure. If you're not doing it, then you are hiding from your customers that your system is actually really insecure. By and large the CISP rules are good rules, there are a few that are really vague, but there's tons of basic stuff like data retention, access logging, password management that everybody should have already been doing. When a company complains about the cost for CISP compliance, to me that sounds like "We don't have secure systems at all, and it will cost real money to fix them, but we value the money over security and integrity and professionalism."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I do n't get it because CISP really represents what you need to do to keep credit card data secure .
If you 're not doing it , then you are hiding from your customers that your system is actually really insecure .
By and large the CISP rules are good rules , there are a few that are really vague , but there 's tons of basic stuff like data retention , access logging , password management that everybody should have already been doing .
When a company complains about the cost for CISP compliance , to me that sounds like " We do n't have secure systems at all , and it will cost real money to fix them , but we value the money over security and integrity and professionalism .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I don't get it because CISP really represents what you need to do to keep credit card data secure.
If you're not doing it, then you are hiding from your customers that your system is actually really insecure.
By and large the CISP rules are good rules, there are a few that are really vague, but there's tons of basic stuff like data retention, access logging, password management that everybody should have already been doing.
When a company complains about the cost for CISP compliance, to me that sounds like "We don't have secure systems at all, and it will cost real money to fix them, but we value the money over security and integrity and professionalism.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337247</id>
	<title>Ferengi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245089880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"What this all means is that protecting individual privacy remains an externality for many companies, and that basic market dynamics won't work to solve the problem.</i></p><p>Most problems, even when you're talking about business, cannot be solved by the free market. Privacy problems <b>could</b> be solved by legislation and/or regulation, but unfortunately governments care even less about your privacy than the corporate Ferengi do.</p><p>"Free market" is an oxymoron. Anyone who believes it can solve all the world's problems is just a moron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What this all means is that protecting individual privacy remains an externality for many companies , and that basic market dynamics wo n't work to solve the problem.Most problems , even when you 're talking about business , can not be solved by the free market .
Privacy problems could be solved by legislation and/or regulation , but unfortunately governments care even less about your privacy than the corporate Ferengi do .
" Free market " is an oxymoron .
Anyone who believes it can solve all the world 's problems is just a moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What this all means is that protecting individual privacy remains an externality for many companies, and that basic market dynamics won't work to solve the problem.Most problems, even when you're talking about business, cannot be solved by the free market.
Privacy problems could be solved by legislation and/or regulation, but unfortunately governments care even less about your privacy than the corporate Ferengi do.
"Free market" is an oxymoron.
Anyone who believes it can solve all the world's problems is just a moron.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337443</id>
	<title>Sounds right</title>
	<author>cybereal</author>
	<datestamp>1245090780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well at least it is hidden, that's what the privacy advocates wanted right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well at least it is hidden , that 's what the privacy advocates wanted right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well at least it is hidden, that's what the privacy advocates wanted right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337321</id>
	<title>You don't?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245090120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So now the question becomes: how do we make regulation as efficient as possible?"</p></div> </blockquote><p>Ideally, you come up with a simple baseline standard, whether through harmonization of existing laws and policies or by determining exactly how much privacy we deserve and enforcing it across the board.  Then you push the standard at the federal level.</p><p>In practice, they will do the above, but to a minimal standard that is riddled with loopholes and overriding state laws that offer greater protection.</p><p>It's comparable to the security vs. convenience problem.  There's a far greater cost to this patchwork system, and it's not nearly as good as it should be, but while it'd be far more convenient to harmonize everything the lobbyists will ensure the result will be evenly ineffective.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So now the question becomes : how do we make regulation as efficient as possible ?
" Ideally , you come up with a simple baseline standard , whether through harmonization of existing laws and policies or by determining exactly how much privacy we deserve and enforcing it across the board .
Then you push the standard at the federal level.In practice , they will do the above , but to a minimal standard that is riddled with loopholes and overriding state laws that offer greater protection.It 's comparable to the security vs. convenience problem .
There 's a far greater cost to this patchwork system , and it 's not nearly as good as it should be , but while it 'd be far more convenient to harmonize everything the lobbyists will ensure the result will be evenly ineffective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now the question becomes: how do we make regulation as efficient as possible?
" Ideally, you come up with a simple baseline standard, whether through harmonization of existing laws and policies or by determining exactly how much privacy we deserve and enforcing it across the board.
Then you push the standard at the federal level.In practice, they will do the above, but to a minimal standard that is riddled with loopholes and overriding state laws that offer greater protection.It's comparable to the security vs. convenience problem.
There's a far greater cost to this patchwork system, and it's not nearly as good as it should be, but while it'd be far more convenient to harmonize everything the lobbyists will ensure the result will be evenly ineffective.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337829</id>
	<title>Re:Begging the proposition.</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1245092460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having your privacy invaded is so profitable to the ne'er do wells that you can't pay them enough not to do it.</p><p>Letting the market sort things out neglects the fact that people who are powerful enough can, will, and even do lie, cheat, and steal.</p><p>Since everyone does it, there's really not much benefit to switching, since you likely gain little.</p><p>Case in point:  CBS's subsidiary getting snookered into passing off private information through CBS only for it to be dumped into the hands of the RIAA.</p><p>And by the time your privacy is breached, it is too late for you to "shop elsewhere", because the damage has already been done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having your privacy invaded is so profitable to the ne'er do wells that you ca n't pay them enough not to do it.Letting the market sort things out neglects the fact that people who are powerful enough can , will , and even do lie , cheat , and steal.Since everyone does it , there 's really not much benefit to switching , since you likely gain little.Case in point : CBS 's subsidiary getting snookered into passing off private information through CBS only for it to be dumped into the hands of the RIAA.And by the time your privacy is breached , it is too late for you to " shop elsewhere " , because the damage has already been done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having your privacy invaded is so profitable to the ne'er do wells that you can't pay them enough not to do it.Letting the market sort things out neglects the fact that people who are powerful enough can, will, and even do lie, cheat, and steal.Since everyone does it, there's really not much benefit to switching, since you likely gain little.Case in point:  CBS's subsidiary getting snookered into passing off private information through CBS only for it to be dumped into the hands of the RIAA.And by the time your privacy is breached, it is too late for you to "shop elsewhere", because the damage has already been done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337457</id>
	<title>Efficiency</title>
	<author>tnmc</author>
	<datestamp>1245090780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"Because the efficient market solution won't work, we're left with inefficient regulatory solutions."</i></p><p>What a load of clap-trap...read this and ignored the rest of the article as it's obvious they don't understand economics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Because the efficient market solution wo n't work , we 're left with inefficient regulatory solutions .
" What a load of clap-trap...read this and ignored the rest of the article as it 's obvious they do n't understand economics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Because the efficient market solution won't work, we're left with inefficient regulatory solutions.
"What a load of clap-trap...read this and ignored the rest of the article as it's obvious they don't understand economics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337493</id>
	<title>Re:Schneier the capitalist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245090900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free markets *are* efficient -- it's the fundamental state of affairs for any market. By definition sellers and buyers in a free market are not acting out of any coercion or under the influence of fraud, but are free to make only the deals they feel are mutually beneficial.</p><p>Unfortunately profit motive can destroy free markets, and all recent examples of capitalism are driven by profit motive -- if there's collusion among a small number of providers, or the current providers form barriers to entry (via new "regulatory" legislation, for example) the market is no longer free, and no longer subject to the same forces of efficiency.</p><p>It might seem like a minor distinction, but if you're going to accuse Americans of misunderstanding economic philosophies you should probably avoid conflating them yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free markets * are * efficient -- it 's the fundamental state of affairs for any market .
By definition sellers and buyers in a free market are not acting out of any coercion or under the influence of fraud , but are free to make only the deals they feel are mutually beneficial.Unfortunately profit motive can destroy free markets , and all recent examples of capitalism are driven by profit motive -- if there 's collusion among a small number of providers , or the current providers form barriers to entry ( via new " regulatory " legislation , for example ) the market is no longer free , and no longer subject to the same forces of efficiency.It might seem like a minor distinction , but if you 're going to accuse Americans of misunderstanding economic philosophies you should probably avoid conflating them yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free markets *are* efficient -- it's the fundamental state of affairs for any market.
By definition sellers and buyers in a free market are not acting out of any coercion or under the influence of fraud, but are free to make only the deals they feel are mutually beneficial.Unfortunately profit motive can destroy free markets, and all recent examples of capitalism are driven by profit motive -- if there's collusion among a small number of providers, or the current providers form barriers to entry (via new "regulatory" legislation, for example) the market is no longer free, and no longer subject to the same forces of efficiency.It might seem like a minor distinction, but if you're going to accuse Americans of misunderstanding economic philosophies you should probably avoid conflating them yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337237</id>
	<title>Privacy cost beyond market efficiency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245089880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reframe this debate into the cost of doing business in a democracy.</p><p>Ubiquitous networks capture data from home address to everyday transactions in detail.  Private informations accumulate.  Markets function on personal information. The expectation of privacy, its protection and concommitant personal security relying upon privacy regulation is a straw man standing in-place of an individual right.</p><p>Simply raising the strawman argument that your right to privacy is political, denigrates its consititutional status to regulatory statute.</p><p>Either the right to privacy is immutatable, codified in the constitution or too expensive?  Reframe this debate into the cost of doing business in a democracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reframe this debate into the cost of doing business in a democracy.Ubiquitous networks capture data from home address to everyday transactions in detail .
Private informations accumulate .
Markets function on personal information .
The expectation of privacy , its protection and concommitant personal security relying upon privacy regulation is a straw man standing in-place of an individual right.Simply raising the strawman argument that your right to privacy is political , denigrates its consititutional status to regulatory statute.Either the right to privacy is immutatable , codified in the constitution or too expensive ?
Reframe this debate into the cost of doing business in a democracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reframe this debate into the cost of doing business in a democracy.Ubiquitous networks capture data from home address to everyday transactions in detail.
Private informations accumulate.
Markets function on personal information.
The expectation of privacy, its protection and concommitant personal security relying upon privacy regulation is a straw man standing in-place of an individual right.Simply raising the strawman argument that your right to privacy is political, denigrates its consititutional status to regulatory statute.Either the right to privacy is immutatable, codified in the constitution or too expensive?
Reframe this debate into the cost of doing business in a democracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337423</id>
	<title>CISP\HIPPA Compliancy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245090660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have:</p><p>SOX, CISP, GLBA, HIPPA as the most expensive for corporations. I can speak to CISP and HIPPA from a professional standpoint. The others I cannot.</p><p>CISP compliance has a serious impact in that test environments cannot use raw customer data for testing for banks. Sanitized data must be used in test environments normally. In the event of a product fix that needs to be testing back in a test environment offshore resources for instance cannot have access to those environments and the data must be documented and exist only for a limited time. Pulling 20,000 records for testing for instance may take 4-6 hours pre-CISP but post CISP the sanitization process may push that out to 5-10 hours. If you are attempting to do that process in the evening, with only a 6 to 8 hour window CISP meant that many had to beef up their systems to ensure the process was complete within the window. For smaller banks the costs must have been harsh. Updating software, policies and procedures can easily rack up a 6000 labor hours in the first year.</p><p>On average CISP complaince can double the turn around time of a production fix (say 20-60 hours of labor) into 40-80 hours for turn around. YOu have an entire chain of events that fire off and kicking out certain staff due to the existence of customer information takes time with SAPs, VPN connectivity, etc... Great for the customer, I cannot argue it, but expensive.</p><p>HIPPA I can speak to growing up in hospitals and clinics as well as painting in those locations part time. Part of the requirement that I see directly is, if I have to paint a clinic or office the clinic staff (not I the painter) has to go through and ensure that ANY AND ALL patient documentation is out of sight prior to me starting. HIPPA has too many "reasonable" language mistakes in it as who defines "reasonable"? The judge? Lawyers? JACO? Who? So paranoia is high with patient data (as it should be.) But getting staff to lock all that up prior to maintenance adds time.</p><p>Another hidden factor is space. A clinic now has to try and keep other patients out of ear shot pushing the lobby out farther.</p><p>Further segragation of roles and even something as simple as those privacy screens add up. In a typical hospital with 200 computers in it let us say, means at $10 bucks a screen you have $2000 in new expenses.</p><p>I've seen a few locations require the inter-office mail couriers to have locked boxes while moving around the facility. Those have to cost at least $350 bucks a box for those.</p><p>Now all those HIPPA forms are going to double if not triple the amount of paper you are ordering. Liability and insured communications also increase costs and add delays. More cerified mail goes out now as far as I can see since HIPPA also.</p><p>One thing to keep in mind is that ANY GOVERMENT COMPLIANCE that exists is disporotionally expensive to smaller organizations. SOX killed a lot of smaller corporations due to the cost of compliance. The smallest get exemptions, the largest can afford it, it's the mid-size businesses that get crushed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have : SOX , CISP , GLBA , HIPPA as the most expensive for corporations .
I can speak to CISP and HIPPA from a professional standpoint .
The others I can not.CISP compliance has a serious impact in that test environments can not use raw customer data for testing for banks .
Sanitized data must be used in test environments normally .
In the event of a product fix that needs to be testing back in a test environment offshore resources for instance can not have access to those environments and the data must be documented and exist only for a limited time .
Pulling 20,000 records for testing for instance may take 4-6 hours pre-CISP but post CISP the sanitization process may push that out to 5-10 hours .
If you are attempting to do that process in the evening , with only a 6 to 8 hour window CISP meant that many had to beef up their systems to ensure the process was complete within the window .
For smaller banks the costs must have been harsh .
Updating software , policies and procedures can easily rack up a 6000 labor hours in the first year.On average CISP complaince can double the turn around time of a production fix ( say 20-60 hours of labor ) into 40-80 hours for turn around .
YOu have an entire chain of events that fire off and kicking out certain staff due to the existence of customer information takes time with SAPs , VPN connectivity , etc... Great for the customer , I can not argue it , but expensive.HIPPA I can speak to growing up in hospitals and clinics as well as painting in those locations part time .
Part of the requirement that I see directly is , if I have to paint a clinic or office the clinic staff ( not I the painter ) has to go through and ensure that ANY AND ALL patient documentation is out of sight prior to me starting .
HIPPA has too many " reasonable " language mistakes in it as who defines " reasonable " ?
The judge ?
Lawyers ? JACO ?
Who ? So paranoia is high with patient data ( as it should be .
) But getting staff to lock all that up prior to maintenance adds time.Another hidden factor is space .
A clinic now has to try and keep other patients out of ear shot pushing the lobby out farther.Further segragation of roles and even something as simple as those privacy screens add up .
In a typical hospital with 200 computers in it let us say , means at $ 10 bucks a screen you have $ 2000 in new expenses.I 've seen a few locations require the inter-office mail couriers to have locked boxes while moving around the facility .
Those have to cost at least $ 350 bucks a box for those.Now all those HIPPA forms are going to double if not triple the amount of paper you are ordering .
Liability and insured communications also increase costs and add delays .
More cerified mail goes out now as far as I can see since HIPPA also.One thing to keep in mind is that ANY GOVERMENT COMPLIANCE that exists is disporotionally expensive to smaller organizations .
SOX killed a lot of smaller corporations due to the cost of compliance .
The smallest get exemptions , the largest can afford it , it 's the mid-size businesses that get crushed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have:SOX, CISP, GLBA, HIPPA as the most expensive for corporations.
I can speak to CISP and HIPPA from a professional standpoint.
The others I cannot.CISP compliance has a serious impact in that test environments cannot use raw customer data for testing for banks.
Sanitized data must be used in test environments normally.
In the event of a product fix that needs to be testing back in a test environment offshore resources for instance cannot have access to those environments and the data must be documented and exist only for a limited time.
Pulling 20,000 records for testing for instance may take 4-6 hours pre-CISP but post CISP the sanitization process may push that out to 5-10 hours.
If you are attempting to do that process in the evening, with only a 6 to 8 hour window CISP meant that many had to beef up their systems to ensure the process was complete within the window.
For smaller banks the costs must have been harsh.
Updating software, policies and procedures can easily rack up a 6000 labor hours in the first year.On average CISP complaince can double the turn around time of a production fix (say 20-60 hours of labor) into 40-80 hours for turn around.
YOu have an entire chain of events that fire off and kicking out certain staff due to the existence of customer information takes time with SAPs, VPN connectivity, etc... Great for the customer, I cannot argue it, but expensive.HIPPA I can speak to growing up in hospitals and clinics as well as painting in those locations part time.
Part of the requirement that I see directly is, if I have to paint a clinic or office the clinic staff (not I the painter) has to go through and ensure that ANY AND ALL patient documentation is out of sight prior to me starting.
HIPPA has too many "reasonable" language mistakes in it as who defines "reasonable"?
The judge?
Lawyers? JACO?
Who? So paranoia is high with patient data (as it should be.
) But getting staff to lock all that up prior to maintenance adds time.Another hidden factor is space.
A clinic now has to try and keep other patients out of ear shot pushing the lobby out farther.Further segragation of roles and even something as simple as those privacy screens add up.
In a typical hospital with 200 computers in it let us say, means at $10 bucks a screen you have $2000 in new expenses.I've seen a few locations require the inter-office mail couriers to have locked boxes while moving around the facility.
Those have to cost at least $350 bucks a box for those.Now all those HIPPA forms are going to double if not triple the amount of paper you are ordering.
Liability and insured communications also increase costs and add delays.
More cerified mail goes out now as far as I can see since HIPPA also.One thing to keep in mind is that ANY GOVERMENT COMPLIANCE that exists is disporotionally expensive to smaller organizations.
SOX killed a lot of smaller corporations due to the cost of compliance.
The smallest get exemptions, the largest can afford it, it's the mid-size businesses that get crushed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337877</id>
	<title>Pure bullshit</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1245092580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see rationalization for government and business intrusion into private lives.  90\% of the information requested and/or demanded by any given government agency or business is totally unnecessary.  It is none of my phone company's business how many people live in the house, or might use the phone.  It is none of my ISP's business how many computers I own, or how many of them might connect through the gateway, or even HOW they might connect.  The government's preoccupation with the precise identification leads to requirements for fingerprints, DNA samples, and more. I once ordered a pizza, in person, with cash in hand, and the cashier insisted that she needed my phone number and address!!  The stupid broad doesn't even need to know my NAME to trade a pizza for a twenty dollar bill!</p><p>In the article, a baker was entrusted with financial information of her clients.  HOW FREAKING BOGUS!!  To bake a wedding cake does NOT require storing my credit card information, or any other personal details.</p><p>Totally unnecessary information is harvested for the most trivial dealings.  And, it's WRONG.</p><p>No government agency, and no business should request information that is not absolutely essential to perform the business at hand.  Nor should they request any more information than they are willing and capable of storing in a SECURE manner.  It is their RESPONSIBILITY to safeguard that information, it isn't some "expense", or an "option", it shouldn't be considered a "burden".  If and when safeguarding information becomes an "expense", then it should be obvious that they are collecting unnecessary and trivial information.</p><p>TFA is bogus rationalization, and an attempt to get people to sympathize with some perceived need to dump privacy laws.  Forbes and Lee Gomes should be slapped silly for even writing and printing the article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see rationalization for government and business intrusion into private lives .
90 \ % of the information requested and/or demanded by any given government agency or business is totally unnecessary .
It is none of my phone company 's business how many people live in the house , or might use the phone .
It is none of my ISP 's business how many computers I own , or how many of them might connect through the gateway , or even HOW they might connect .
The government 's preoccupation with the precise identification leads to requirements for fingerprints , DNA samples , and more .
I once ordered a pizza , in person , with cash in hand , and the cashier insisted that she needed my phone number and address ! !
The stupid broad does n't even need to know my NAME to trade a pizza for a twenty dollar bill ! In the article , a baker was entrusted with financial information of her clients .
HOW FREAKING BOGUS ! !
To bake a wedding cake does NOT require storing my credit card information , or any other personal details.Totally unnecessary information is harvested for the most trivial dealings .
And , it 's WRONG.No government agency , and no business should request information that is not absolutely essential to perform the business at hand .
Nor should they request any more information than they are willing and capable of storing in a SECURE manner .
It is their RESPONSIBILITY to safeguard that information , it is n't some " expense " , or an " option " , it should n't be considered a " burden " .
If and when safeguarding information becomes an " expense " , then it should be obvious that they are collecting unnecessary and trivial information.TFA is bogus rationalization , and an attempt to get people to sympathize with some perceived need to dump privacy laws .
Forbes and Lee Gomes should be slapped silly for even writing and printing the article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see rationalization for government and business intrusion into private lives.
90\% of the information requested and/or demanded by any given government agency or business is totally unnecessary.
It is none of my phone company's business how many people live in the house, or might use the phone.
It is none of my ISP's business how many computers I own, or how many of them might connect through the gateway, or even HOW they might connect.
The government's preoccupation with the precise identification leads to requirements for fingerprints, DNA samples, and more.
I once ordered a pizza, in person, with cash in hand, and the cashier insisted that she needed my phone number and address!!
The stupid broad doesn't even need to know my NAME to trade a pizza for a twenty dollar bill!In the article, a baker was entrusted with financial information of her clients.
HOW FREAKING BOGUS!!
To bake a wedding cake does NOT require storing my credit card information, or any other personal details.Totally unnecessary information is harvested for the most trivial dealings.
And, it's WRONG.No government agency, and no business should request information that is not absolutely essential to perform the business at hand.
Nor should they request any more information than they are willing and capable of storing in a SECURE manner.
It is their RESPONSIBILITY to safeguard that information, it isn't some "expense", or an "option", it shouldn't be considered a "burden".
If and when safeguarding information becomes an "expense", then it should be obvious that they are collecting unnecessary and trivial information.TFA is bogus rationalization, and an attempt to get people to sympathize with some perceived need to dump privacy laws.
Forbes and Lee Gomes should be slapped silly for even writing and printing the article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337899</id>
	<title>Simple solution!</title>
	<author>Brandybuck</author>
	<datestamp>1245092700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that we don't have enough regulations. If one regulation isn't working, slap another on top of it. Keep piling them up until the problem goes away. Remember, the government is our friend, and only sociopaths would object to more government involvement in their lives.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but seriously folks...</p><p>The core problem is that the property rights around privacy are ill defined. Who owns the information? Regulations can be minimized while being more effective, if they addressed the property rights involved. While I don't think the information itself can be owned, the media upon which it resides can be. Your diary, your server, etc. For example, you don't own your address information, and cannot legitimately stop someone from disseminating that information ("Bob lives at 123 Main Street"), but that letter is your private property, and you should be able to sue the crap off anyone who opens it and reads the contents. Mail servers are typically the property of the ISP, but you are renting its use so your emails are as much your property as your clothes hanging in a closet of a rental apartment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that we do n't have enough regulations .
If one regulation is n't working , slap another on top of it .
Keep piling them up until the problem goes away .
Remember , the government is our friend , and only sociopaths would object to more government involvement in their lives .
... but seriously folks...The core problem is that the property rights around privacy are ill defined .
Who owns the information ?
Regulations can be minimized while being more effective , if they addressed the property rights involved .
While I do n't think the information itself can be owned , the media upon which it resides can be .
Your diary , your server , etc .
For example , you do n't own your address information , and can not legitimately stop someone from disseminating that information ( " Bob lives at 123 Main Street " ) , but that letter is your private property , and you should be able to sue the crap off anyone who opens it and reads the contents .
Mail servers are typically the property of the ISP , but you are renting its use so your emails are as much your property as your clothes hanging in a closet of a rental apartment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that we don't have enough regulations.
If one regulation isn't working, slap another on top of it.
Keep piling them up until the problem goes away.
Remember, the government is our friend, and only sociopaths would object to more government involvement in their lives.
... but seriously folks...The core problem is that the property rights around privacy are ill defined.
Who owns the information?
Regulations can be minimized while being more effective, if they addressed the property rights involved.
While I don't think the information itself can be owned, the media upon which it resides can be.
Your diary, your server, etc.
For example, you don't own your address information, and cannot legitimately stop someone from disseminating that information ("Bob lives at 123 Main Street"), but that letter is your private property, and you should be able to sue the crap off anyone who opens it and reads the contents.
Mail servers are typically the property of the ISP, but you are renting its use so your emails are as much your property as your clothes hanging in a closet of a rental apartment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28339811</id>
	<title>Re:Efficiency</title>
	<author>srobert</author>
	<datestamp>1245056820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Milton Friedman? Is that you? I thought you were dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Milton Friedman ?
Is that you ?
I thought you were dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Milton Friedman?
Is that you?
I thought you were dead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337457</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28338485</id>
	<title>The simple act of paying attention to privacy</title>
	<author>goffster</author>
	<datestamp>1245095400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If someone tries to design their site from day one with privacy in mind,<br>a user is likely to have pretty good privacy.   Any single law will not help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone tries to design their site from day one with privacy in mind,a user is likely to have pretty good privacy .
Any single law will not help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone tries to design their site from day one with privacy in mind,a user is likely to have pretty good privacy.
Any single law will not help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28343685</id>
	<title>Let the lawyers and insurance guys fight it out...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245080760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let the opposing forces of risk of a lawsuit vs the cost of privacy solutions face off...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let the opposing forces of risk of a lawsuit vs the cost of privacy solutions face off.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let the opposing forces of risk of a lawsuit vs the cost of privacy solutions face off...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28339085</id>
	<title>Re:Schneier the capitalist</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1245097320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And wealth doesn't trickle down, it flows up.</p></div><p>Yeah, contrary to the term "trickle down economics", I think the real intent was always to help wealth flow up.  However, I don't think it was *purely* for the nefarious reasons that people assume, but rather from an economic philosophy that "Rich people are rich because they know how to manage and spend money well.  If we want our economy to be run as well as possible, we should give as much money as we can to rich people."  You can see it if you listen carefully to some people's rhetoric.
</p><p>You see it in their complaints about any funding to help poor people, to provide health care, or anything else.  The idea is, all poor people are poor simply because they've made bad choices, done the wrong thing, and are providing no value to society.  Inversely, they believe that rich people deserve all their rewards because they are only rich because of their good judgement and contributions to society.
</p><p>However, it is true that wealth has a habit of naturally trickling up.  Like all forms of power, having economic power gives you the ability to draw more economic power to yourself.  It's easier to get loans and investments if you already have lots of money, you can hire competent people to manage your money for you, and you have the upper hand in any conflicts you get into with those less powerful than you (even if you're in the wrong).  It's just easier to go from having $100 million to $101 million than it is to go from $0 to $1 million.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And wealth does n't trickle down , it flows up.Yeah , contrary to the term " trickle down economics " , I think the real intent was always to help wealth flow up .
However , I do n't think it was * purely * for the nefarious reasons that people assume , but rather from an economic philosophy that " Rich people are rich because they know how to manage and spend money well .
If we want our economy to be run as well as possible , we should give as much money as we can to rich people .
" You can see it if you listen carefully to some people 's rhetoric .
You see it in their complaints about any funding to help poor people , to provide health care , or anything else .
The idea is , all poor people are poor simply because they 've made bad choices , done the wrong thing , and are providing no value to society .
Inversely , they believe that rich people deserve all their rewards because they are only rich because of their good judgement and contributions to society .
However , it is true that wealth has a habit of naturally trickling up .
Like all forms of power , having economic power gives you the ability to draw more economic power to yourself .
It 's easier to get loans and investments if you already have lots of money , you can hire competent people to manage your money for you , and you have the upper hand in any conflicts you get into with those less powerful than you ( even if you 're in the wrong ) .
It 's just easier to go from having $ 100 million to $ 101 million than it is to go from $ 0 to $ 1 million .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And wealth doesn't trickle down, it flows up.Yeah, contrary to the term "trickle down economics", I think the real intent was always to help wealth flow up.
However, I don't think it was *purely* for the nefarious reasons that people assume, but rather from an economic philosophy that "Rich people are rich because they know how to manage and spend money well.
If we want our economy to be run as well as possible, we should give as much money as we can to rich people.
"  You can see it if you listen carefully to some people's rhetoric.
You see it in their complaints about any funding to help poor people, to provide health care, or anything else.
The idea is, all poor people are poor simply because they've made bad choices, done the wrong thing, and are providing no value to society.
Inversely, they believe that rich people deserve all their rewards because they are only rich because of their good judgement and contributions to society.
However, it is true that wealth has a habit of naturally trickling up.
Like all forms of power, having economic power gives you the ability to draw more economic power to yourself.
It's easier to get loans and investments if you already have lots of money, you can hire competent people to manage your money for you, and you have the upper hand in any conflicts you get into with those less powerful than you (even if you're in the wrong).
It's just easier to go from having $100 million to $101 million than it is to go from $0 to $1 million.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337571</id>
	<title>Easy answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245091260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From teh OP-</p><blockquote><div><p>Because the efficient market solution won't work, we're left with inefficient regulatory solutions. So now the question becomes: how do we make regulation as efficient as possible?</p></div></blockquote><p>How about by setting your privacy policies to exceed what is strictly required by law?</p><p>Oh Noes, it can't be that- conservatives don't believe in a right to privacy, so our information has to be held hostage by people who view it as their property.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From teh OP-Because the efficient market solution wo n't work , we 're left with inefficient regulatory solutions .
So now the question becomes : how do we make regulation as efficient as possible ? How about by setting your privacy policies to exceed what is strictly required by law ? Oh Noes , it ca n't be that- conservatives do n't believe in a right to privacy , so our information has to be held hostage by people who view it as their property .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From teh OP-Because the efficient market solution won't work, we're left with inefficient regulatory solutions.
So now the question becomes: how do we make regulation as efficient as possible?How about by setting your privacy policies to exceed what is strictly required by law?Oh Noes, it can't be that- conservatives don't believe in a right to privacy, so our information has to be held hostage by people who view it as their property.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28336997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337293</id>
	<title>Simple solution</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1245090000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Define the ownership of personal data to include the person whom the data applies to.
</p><p>If I enter into a business relationship with someone else, all the information I provide should be considered to be co-owned by both of us. Any subsequent sharing of that information with a third party should involve both the consent of both of us as well as sharing the proceeds of that subsequent exchange. When the costs of managing such transactions are factored in, far fewer of them would occur.
</p><p>The idea that anyone complains about the costs of complying with such regulations puzzles me. I mean, I could start a business stealing cars and then complain that the costs of complying with auto theft laws were onerous and harming the profitability of my enterprise. Tough sh*t. Its all based on fundamental property rights. Just because someone has developed a business model based upon a legal oversight doesn't legitimize their complaint when the law catches up and plugs the loophole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Define the ownership of personal data to include the person whom the data applies to .
If I enter into a business relationship with someone else , all the information I provide should be considered to be co-owned by both of us .
Any subsequent sharing of that information with a third party should involve both the consent of both of us as well as sharing the proceeds of that subsequent exchange .
When the costs of managing such transactions are factored in , far fewer of them would occur .
The idea that anyone complains about the costs of complying with such regulations puzzles me .
I mean , I could start a business stealing cars and then complain that the costs of complying with auto theft laws were onerous and harming the profitability of my enterprise .
Tough sh * t. Its all based on fundamental property rights .
Just because someone has developed a business model based upon a legal oversight does n't legitimize their complaint when the law catches up and plugs the loophole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Define the ownership of personal data to include the person whom the data applies to.
If I enter into a business relationship with someone else, all the information I provide should be considered to be co-owned by both of us.
Any subsequent sharing of that information with a third party should involve both the consent of both of us as well as sharing the proceeds of that subsequent exchange.
When the costs of managing such transactions are factored in, far fewer of them would occur.
The idea that anyone complains about the costs of complying with such regulations puzzles me.
I mean, I could start a business stealing cars and then complain that the costs of complying with auto theft laws were onerous and harming the profitability of my enterprise.
Tough sh*t. Its all based on fundamental property rights.
Just because someone has developed a business model based upon a legal oversight doesn't legitimize their complaint when the law catches up and plugs the loophole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337585</id>
	<title>Privacy</title>
	<author>Ceiynt</author>
	<datestamp>1245091260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it is online, it is not secure in todays world.<br>
Take all records off line. Require a photo be placed in the file at the home/main office you visit most. You must present a photo ID and signature for any transaction, and it must match what is in the profile, or the transaction/whatever will not be processed.<br>
This is highly inconvienent to everyone involved, but will reduce security issues.<br>
If it is online, it is not secure in todays world. <br>
An individual, up to a government backed hack group, can break into your system. All that is required is time, or an idiot forgetting a laptop in the front seat of the car. <br>
If it is online, it is not secure in todays world.<br>
You can have privacy/security, or you can have easy. Pick one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is online , it is not secure in todays world .
Take all records off line .
Require a photo be placed in the file at the home/main office you visit most .
You must present a photo ID and signature for any transaction , and it must match what is in the profile , or the transaction/whatever will not be processed .
This is highly inconvienent to everyone involved , but will reduce security issues .
If it is online , it is not secure in todays world .
An individual , up to a government backed hack group , can break into your system .
All that is required is time , or an idiot forgetting a laptop in the front seat of the car .
If it is online , it is not secure in todays world .
You can have privacy/security , or you can have easy .
Pick one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is online, it is not secure in todays world.
Take all records off line.
Require a photo be placed in the file at the home/main office you visit most.
You must present a photo ID and signature for any transaction, and it must match what is in the profile, or the transaction/whatever will not be processed.
This is highly inconvienent to everyone involved, but will reduce security issues.
If it is online, it is not secure in todays world.
An individual, up to a government backed hack group, can break into your system.
All that is required is time, or an idiot forgetting a laptop in the front seat of the car.
If it is online, it is not secure in todays world.
You can have privacy/security, or you can have easy.
Pick one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337785</id>
	<title>Re:Begging the proposition.</title>
	<author>JoeMerchant</author>
	<datestamp>1245092280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nothing is really private, but, you can't have your personal information be used to attack you, and that is what the market reflects.</p></div><p>Unfortunately, the only way to enforce this type of scheme is through court cases after the fact... "don't ask, don't tell" is far more efficient.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing is really private , but , you ca n't have your personal information be used to attack you , and that is what the market reflects.Unfortunately , the only way to enforce this type of scheme is through court cases after the fact... " do n't ask , do n't tell " is far more efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing is really private, but, you can't have your personal information be used to attack you, and that is what the market reflects.Unfortunately, the only way to enforce this type of scheme is through court cases after the fact... "don't ask, don't tell" is far more efficient.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337897</id>
	<title>Re:CISP\HIPPA Compliancy</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1245092700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>SOX killed a lot of smaller corporations due to the cost of compliance.</p></div></blockquote><p>[citation needed]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>SOX killed a lot of smaller corporations due to the cost of compliance .
[ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SOX killed a lot of smaller corporations due to the cost of compliance.
[citation needed]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28338129</id>
	<title>Commies!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245093900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These Forbes guys are a bunch of pinko commie bastards!</p><p>"basic market dynamics won't work to solve the problem"</p><p>How anti-capitalist!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These Forbes guys are a bunch of pinko commie bastards !
" basic market dynamics wo n't work to solve the problem " How anti-capitalist !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These Forbes guys are a bunch of pinko commie bastards!
"basic market dynamics won't work to solve the problem"How anti-capitalist!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337639</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245091560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No one is forcing you to share CORRECT information with the people you enter into a business relationship with. The only reliable data they have on you is the record of what you have actually purchased from them, along with the delivery and billing info. Your name, age, and address should have no market value at all, since they are available for free for every registered voter.<br> <br>
I agree with you, though -- I should get a cut of any profits made by selling my information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one is forcing you to share CORRECT information with the people you enter into a business relationship with .
The only reliable data they have on you is the record of what you have actually purchased from them , along with the delivery and billing info .
Your name , age , and address should have no market value at all , since they are available for free for every registered voter .
I agree with you , though -- I should get a cut of any profits made by selling my information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one is forcing you to share CORRECT information with the people you enter into a business relationship with.
The only reliable data they have on you is the record of what you have actually purchased from them, along with the delivery and billing info.
Your name, age, and address should have no market value at all, since they are available for free for every registered voter.
I agree with you, though -- I should get a cut of any profits made by selling my information.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337687</id>
	<title>Re:Schneier the capitalist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245091920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So American's were completely brainwashed by the Reagan years</i></p><p>American's WHAT were brainwashed? Oh, I see, you simply don't understand how to use an apostrophe. Understandable since English is probably not your first language.</p><p>Not all of us are Reaganites. His slashing the capital gains tax hurt a LOT of ordinary, non-rich workers when it unleashed a flurry of corporate buyouts and sellouts, which resulted in workers being laid off or hours cut.</p><p>And wealth doesn't trickle down, it flows up. The programmer, bricklayer, songwriter, carpenter, laboror creates wealth. His employer simply aggregates and controls it. Cutting taxes on the poor and middle class helps the economy, cutting taxes on the upper class hurts it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So American 's were completely brainwashed by the Reagan yearsAmerican 's WHAT were brainwashed ?
Oh , I see , you simply do n't understand how to use an apostrophe .
Understandable since English is probably not your first language.Not all of us are Reaganites .
His slashing the capital gains tax hurt a LOT of ordinary , non-rich workers when it unleashed a flurry of corporate buyouts and sellouts , which resulted in workers being laid off or hours cut.And wealth does n't trickle down , it flows up .
The programmer , bricklayer , songwriter , carpenter , laboror creates wealth .
His employer simply aggregates and controls it .
Cutting taxes on the poor and middle class helps the economy , cutting taxes on the upper class hurts it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So American's were completely brainwashed by the Reagan yearsAmerican's WHAT were brainwashed?
Oh, I see, you simply don't understand how to use an apostrophe.
Understandable since English is probably not your first language.Not all of us are Reaganites.
His slashing the capital gains tax hurt a LOT of ordinary, non-rich workers when it unleashed a flurry of corporate buyouts and sellouts, which resulted in workers being laid off or hours cut.And wealth doesn't trickle down, it flows up.
The programmer, bricklayer, songwriter, carpenter, laboror creates wealth.
His employer simply aggregates and controls it.
Cutting taxes on the poor and middle class helps the economy, cutting taxes on the upper class hurts it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337181</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337565</id>
	<title>creampiesurprise tag?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245091200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Help me understand why this was tagged creampiesurprise? Is there a joke I missed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Help me understand why this was tagged creampiesurprise ?
Is there a joke I missed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Help me understand why this was tagged creampiesurprise?
Is there a joke I missed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28338731</id>
	<title>Re:Ferengi</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1245096240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Free market" is an oxymoron.</p></div><p>I'm not sure what you mean here, but I think it's true that many people have it wrong.  They believe that "free market" indicates zero governmental involvement, which isn't really a good way of thinking of things.  Worse yet, they sometimes don't see governmental involvement as a violation of the free market, so long as the governmental involvement comes in the form of subsidies rather than regulation.
</p><p>A real free market is one in which both the sellers and purchasers are given free and open choices, and "market forces" set the prices and terms of goods and services.  Influence on the market by non-governmental bodies (monopolies and cartels) is just as effective at making a market unfree as governmental regulation.  Also subsidies and tax breaks have the effect of regulation, and are just as effective at making the market unfree.  Even manipulation (like people pumping/dumping stock) effectively subvert those terrific free-market forces which allow for efficient allocation of economic resources.
</p><p>So when viewed this way, it becomes clear that well-formed governmental regulation can have the effect of making a market more free.  Power has a tendency to pool, in that an entity with power can use that power to accrue more power.  Left unchecked, that tends to lead to the sort of monopolies and cartels that might engage in price-fixing and economic abuse.  If there is careful governmental legislation that, without bias toward any particular supplier or business model, prevents those monopolies from exerting undue control over the market, then it may in fact spur competition creating the very "free market" forces that you want.  Forced to compete, companies tend to innovate, improve efficiency, drop prices, etc.
</p><p>But beyond all that, it's also true that the free market doesn't do everything.  We don't trust our police force to the "free market", and the reason is pretty simple: free markets are more efficient, but don't guarantee even and just allocation of resources.  We believe that the law applies to rich and poor alike (at least most of us believe it should, even though it often doesn't), so having the only police force be the private army of the rich would be horribly unjust.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Free market " is an oxymoron.I 'm not sure what you mean here , but I think it 's true that many people have it wrong .
They believe that " free market " indicates zero governmental involvement , which is n't really a good way of thinking of things .
Worse yet , they sometimes do n't see governmental involvement as a violation of the free market , so long as the governmental involvement comes in the form of subsidies rather than regulation .
A real free market is one in which both the sellers and purchasers are given free and open choices , and " market forces " set the prices and terms of goods and services .
Influence on the market by non-governmental bodies ( monopolies and cartels ) is just as effective at making a market unfree as governmental regulation .
Also subsidies and tax breaks have the effect of regulation , and are just as effective at making the market unfree .
Even manipulation ( like people pumping/dumping stock ) effectively subvert those terrific free-market forces which allow for efficient allocation of economic resources .
So when viewed this way , it becomes clear that well-formed governmental regulation can have the effect of making a market more free .
Power has a tendency to pool , in that an entity with power can use that power to accrue more power .
Left unchecked , that tends to lead to the sort of monopolies and cartels that might engage in price-fixing and economic abuse .
If there is careful governmental legislation that , without bias toward any particular supplier or business model , prevents those monopolies from exerting undue control over the market , then it may in fact spur competition creating the very " free market " forces that you want .
Forced to compete , companies tend to innovate , improve efficiency , drop prices , etc .
But beyond all that , it 's also true that the free market does n't do everything .
We do n't trust our police force to the " free market " , and the reason is pretty simple : free markets are more efficient , but do n't guarantee even and just allocation of resources .
We believe that the law applies to rich and poor alike ( at least most of us believe it should , even though it often does n't ) , so having the only police force be the private army of the rich would be horribly unjust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Free market" is an oxymoron.I'm not sure what you mean here, but I think it's true that many people have it wrong.
They believe that "free market" indicates zero governmental involvement, which isn't really a good way of thinking of things.
Worse yet, they sometimes don't see governmental involvement as a violation of the free market, so long as the governmental involvement comes in the form of subsidies rather than regulation.
A real free market is one in which both the sellers and purchasers are given free and open choices, and "market forces" set the prices and terms of goods and services.
Influence on the market by non-governmental bodies (monopolies and cartels) is just as effective at making a market unfree as governmental regulation.
Also subsidies and tax breaks have the effect of regulation, and are just as effective at making the market unfree.
Even manipulation (like people pumping/dumping stock) effectively subvert those terrific free-market forces which allow for efficient allocation of economic resources.
So when viewed this way, it becomes clear that well-formed governmental regulation can have the effect of making a market more free.
Power has a tendency to pool, in that an entity with power can use that power to accrue more power.
Left unchecked, that tends to lead to the sort of monopolies and cartels that might engage in price-fixing and economic abuse.
If there is careful governmental legislation that, without bias toward any particular supplier or business model, prevents those monopolies from exerting undue control over the market, then it may in fact spur competition creating the very "free market" forces that you want.
Forced to compete, companies tend to innovate, improve efficiency, drop prices, etc.
But beyond all that, it's also true that the free market doesn't do everything.
We don't trust our police force to the "free market", and the reason is pretty simple: free markets are more efficient, but don't guarantee even and just allocation of resources.
We believe that the law applies to rich and poor alike (at least most of us believe it should, even though it often doesn't), so having the only police force be the private army of the rich would be horribly unjust.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337709</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245092040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If I enter into a business relationship with someone else, all the information I provide should be considered to be co-owned by both of us</i></p><p>I can't agree. I'm not giving that information away, I'm allowing him to use it. After all, if I buy a CD I don't own the song, now do I? No information I provide while doing business should be provided any thord party unless I explicitly allow it, and when my business relationship ends, any info I provided should be destroyed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I enter into a business relationship with someone else , all the information I provide should be considered to be co-owned by both of usI ca n't agree .
I 'm not giving that information away , I 'm allowing him to use it .
After all , if I buy a CD I do n't own the song , now do I ?
No information I provide while doing business should be provided any thord party unless I explicitly allow it , and when my business relationship ends , any info I provided should be destroyed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I enter into a business relationship with someone else, all the information I provide should be considered to be co-owned by both of usI can't agree.
I'm not giving that information away, I'm allowing him to use it.
After all, if I buy a CD I don't own the song, now do I?
No information I provide while doing business should be provided any thord party unless I explicitly allow it, and when my business relationship ends, any info I provided should be destroyed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28358681</id>
	<title>Privacy?</title>
	<author>Shadow-Copy</author>
	<datestamp>1245271260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anonymous is dieing on the net. That is not new.</p><p>Everyone was anonymous six years ago on the web. Browsing the web anonymously, today, is impossible. From the fact, of how bad identity theft has become, shows that you don't pay for privacy. You have to show who you are, where ever you go. Even federal investigations will need warrants and permissions to snoop on people's system before long. That is already in motion, called the " Invisible Man Act". Just from how many legals exploit the ability to go to where they are not suppose by using official software.  If you are new to the net that would be considered news.</p><p>That author is basically posting information that was in the News four months ago. I would attach dupe to this post. If Shnieder posted it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonymous is dieing on the net .
That is not new.Everyone was anonymous six years ago on the web .
Browsing the web anonymously , today , is impossible .
From the fact , of how bad identity theft has become , shows that you do n't pay for privacy .
You have to show who you are , where ever you go .
Even federal investigations will need warrants and permissions to snoop on people 's system before long .
That is already in motion , called the " Invisible Man Act " .
Just from how many legals exploit the ability to go to where they are not suppose by using official software .
If you are new to the net that would be considered news.That author is basically posting information that was in the News four months ago .
I would attach dupe to this post .
If Shnieder posted it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonymous is dieing on the net.
That is not new.Everyone was anonymous six years ago on the web.
Browsing the web anonymously, today, is impossible.
From the fact, of how bad identity theft has become, shows that you don't pay for privacy.
You have to show who you are, where ever you go.
Even federal investigations will need warrants and permissions to snoop on people's system before long.
That is already in motion, called the " Invisible Man Act".
Just from how many legals exploit the ability to go to where they are not suppose by using official software.
If you are new to the net that would be considered news.That author is basically posting information that was in the News four months ago.
I would attach dupe to this post.
If Shnieder posted it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28343681</id>
	<title>Oldie but goodie</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1245080700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A classic from nearly 100 years ago:</p><p>"If you want privacy, pay cash. If you want good privacy, pay with dirty cash." - Wilton.</p><p>I have no idea who Wilton is, I got the plaque at a garage sale for 50 cents and the date on the back was 1909.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A classic from nearly 100 years ago : " If you want privacy , pay cash .
If you want good privacy , pay with dirty cash .
" - Wilton.I have no idea who Wilton is , I got the plaque at a garage sale for 50 cents and the date on the back was 1909 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A classic from nearly 100 years ago:"If you want privacy, pay cash.
If you want good privacy, pay with dirty cash.
" - Wilton.I have no idea who Wilton is, I got the plaque at a garage sale for 50 cents and the date on the back was 1909.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337313</id>
	<title>Markets?</title>
	<author>AvitarX</author>
	<datestamp>1245090060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So now the question becomes: how do we make regulation as efficient as possible?</p></div><p>You do it with a market of course.</p><p>Unfortunately that tends to mean a migration to places with essentially no regulation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So now the question becomes : how do we make regulation as efficient as possible ? You do it with a market of course.Unfortunately that tends to mean a migration to places with essentially no regulation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now the question becomes: how do we make regulation as efficient as possible?You do it with a market of course.Unfortunately that tends to mean a migration to places with essentially no regulation.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28339661</id>
	<title>Re:Pure bullshit</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1245099480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is the pizza store that does not collect information for marketing purposes loses out to the ones that do.  They want your phone number so they can connect it with other purchases in person and by phone.  They can then mail coupons to their customers specifically at much lower cost than doing a blanket mailing to everyone in the city.</p><p>So the pizza place that doesn't ask for your phone number is doomed to fail.  Because they aren't as efficent in marketing their product as others are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is the pizza store that does not collect information for marketing purposes loses out to the ones that do .
They want your phone number so they can connect it with other purchases in person and by phone .
They can then mail coupons to their customers specifically at much lower cost than doing a blanket mailing to everyone in the city.So the pizza place that does n't ask for your phone number is doomed to fail .
Because they are n't as efficent in marketing their product as others are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is the pizza store that does not collect information for marketing purposes loses out to the ones that do.
They want your phone number so they can connect it with other purchases in person and by phone.
They can then mail coupons to their customers specifically at much lower cost than doing a blanket mailing to everyone in the city.So the pizza place that doesn't ask for your phone number is doomed to fail.
Because they aren't as efficent in marketing their product as others are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337857</id>
	<title>Re:Begging the proposition.</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1245092580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are right that most people don't care about their privacy, but then again, if you ask people if they want to pay 20\% less for a car if it had no airbags or seatbelts or anti-lock brakes, they may have no problem with it. However, the cost to society in the form of radically more serious injuries makes sense for the market to have these rules in the long run.</p><p>The costs and benefits of privacy regulation can certainly be debated. But without regulations, markets don't function well, since they are not self-aware or interested in self-preservation. For reference, move to Somalia.</p><p>You can make the argument whether regulations should extend beyond standardization, but it's a relatively simple choice as far as I'm concerned. The market solution for salmonella poisoning would be that a bunch of people would die, and people would avoid buying products from the same company, until the next round of deaths occur. The scary communist solution is to demand outside inspections from a third party - the best option being the government.</p><p>Now, why is the government a good idea? Because people without money can compel it to be transparent. If you had a private party doing the inspections, you could not review their actions. All of the criticism of the FDA is possibly only because as a state entity, it must be transparent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are right that most people do n't care about their privacy , but then again , if you ask people if they want to pay 20 \ % less for a car if it had no airbags or seatbelts or anti-lock brakes , they may have no problem with it .
However , the cost to society in the form of radically more serious injuries makes sense for the market to have these rules in the long run.The costs and benefits of privacy regulation can certainly be debated .
But without regulations , markets do n't function well , since they are not self-aware or interested in self-preservation .
For reference , move to Somalia.You can make the argument whether regulations should extend beyond standardization , but it 's a relatively simple choice as far as I 'm concerned .
The market solution for salmonella poisoning would be that a bunch of people would die , and people would avoid buying products from the same company , until the next round of deaths occur .
The scary communist solution is to demand outside inspections from a third party - the best option being the government.Now , why is the government a good idea ?
Because people without money can compel it to be transparent .
If you had a private party doing the inspections , you could not review their actions .
All of the criticism of the FDA is possibly only because as a state entity , it must be transparent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are right that most people don't care about their privacy, but then again, if you ask people if they want to pay 20\% less for a car if it had no airbags or seatbelts or anti-lock brakes, they may have no problem with it.
However, the cost to society in the form of radically more serious injuries makes sense for the market to have these rules in the long run.The costs and benefits of privacy regulation can certainly be debated.
But without regulations, markets don't function well, since they are not self-aware or interested in self-preservation.
For reference, move to Somalia.You can make the argument whether regulations should extend beyond standardization, but it's a relatively simple choice as far as I'm concerned.
The market solution for salmonella poisoning would be that a bunch of people would die, and people would avoid buying products from the same company, until the next round of deaths occur.
The scary communist solution is to demand outside inspections from a third party - the best option being the government.Now, why is the government a good idea?
Because people without money can compel it to be transparent.
If you had a private party doing the inspections, you could not review their actions.
All of the criticism of the FDA is possibly only because as a state entity, it must be transparent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28339937</id>
	<title>Re:Ferengi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245057360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who modded this insightful?  It has no content other than name-calling anyone who disagrees with a vague statement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who modded this insightful ?
It has no content other than name-calling anyone who disagrees with a vague statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who modded this insightful?
It has no content other than name-calling anyone who disagrees with a vague statement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337119</id>
	<title>Jews</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245089220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jews steal land and water.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jews steal land and water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jews steal land and water.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28338033</id>
	<title>easy.....</title>
	<author>AnAdventurer</author>
	<datestamp>1245093300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Live in small town, use cash. live simply. Try Amish style. Or stop caring; What's the worse that can happen? Hacked, credit gets bad? Bail the country. Go off grid. Lot's of options.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Live in small town , use cash .
live simply .
Try Amish style .
Or stop caring ; What 's the worse that can happen ?
Hacked , credit gets bad ?
Bail the country .
Go off grid .
Lot 's of options .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Live in small town, use cash.
live simply.
Try Amish style.
Or stop caring; What's the worse that can happen?
Hacked, credit gets bad?
Bail the country.
Go off grid.
Lot's of options.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28338665</id>
	<title>Re:CISP\HIPPA Compliancy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245096000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since you're a professional, you'll know that HIPPA stands for Health Insurance Portability and Pccountability Act.</p><p>Wait, that's not how you spell "accountability"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you 're a professional , you 'll know that HIPPA stands for Health Insurance Portability and Pccountability Act.Wait , that 's not how you spell " accountability " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you're a professional, you'll know that HIPPA stands for Health Insurance Portability and Pccountability Act.Wait, that's not how you spell "accountability"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337733</id>
	<title>Re:Begging the proposition.</title>
	<author>Jawn98685</author>
	<datestamp>1245092160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bullshit. <br>
<br>People do care about privacy. Your example is lame in that it excuses (ignores) the deliberately obfuscated consequences of "agreeing" to the terms attached to the club card "deal". If the supermarket told their customers, right up front, something like "...and in addition to using it for our own marketing purposes, we will be selling the information we collect about you and your shopping habits to as many takers as we can scare up, and there are plenty of them.", I'd hazard that far fewer customers would take the "deal". And let's not even waste time discussing those companies that have no compunction at all when it comes to reserving the right to "...change the terms of this agreement at any time..." in the way-fine print of the agreement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit .
People do care about privacy .
Your example is lame in that it excuses ( ignores ) the deliberately obfuscated consequences of " agreeing " to the terms attached to the club card " deal " .
If the supermarket told their customers , right up front , something like " ...and in addition to using it for our own marketing purposes , we will be selling the information we collect about you and your shopping habits to as many takers as we can scare up , and there are plenty of them .
" , I 'd hazard that far fewer customers would take the " deal " .
And let 's not even waste time discussing those companies that have no compunction at all when it comes to reserving the right to " ...change the terms of this agreement at any time... " in the way-fine print of the agreement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.
People do care about privacy.
Your example is lame in that it excuses (ignores) the deliberately obfuscated consequences of "agreeing" to the terms attached to the club card "deal".
If the supermarket told their customers, right up front, something like "...and in addition to using it for our own marketing purposes, we will be selling the information we collect about you and your shopping habits to as many takers as we can scare up, and there are plenty of them.
", I'd hazard that far fewer customers would take the "deal".
And let's not even waste time discussing those companies that have no compunction at all when it comes to reserving the right to "...change the terms of this agreement at any time..." in the way-fine print of the agreement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28338197</id>
	<title>Cox Customer Support</title>
	<author>hoooocheymomma</author>
	<datestamp>1245094140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've got that privacy thing down!</p><p>I call them because my Internet connection is down. I verify my identity with them. "Do I have permission to access your account, sir?"</p><p>No, you don't. I expect you to investigate my connection problems without looking into my account. Furthermore, I do not grant you permission to access any other data on YOUR network either.</p><p>Thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've got that privacy thing down ! I call them because my Internet connection is down .
I verify my identity with them .
" Do I have permission to access your account , sir ?
" No , you do n't .
I expect you to investigate my connection problems without looking into my account .
Furthermore , I do not grant you permission to access any other data on YOUR network either.Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've got that privacy thing down!I call them because my Internet connection is down.
I verify my identity with them.
"Do I have permission to access your account, sir?
"No, you don't.
I expect you to investigate my connection problems without looking into my account.
Furthermore, I do not grant you permission to access any other data on YOUR network either.Thank you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337255</id>
	<title>Begging the proposition.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1245089880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's funny that one could look at this and say the markets don't work.  The markets ARE working and that most people don't actually care about privacy.</p><p>If people -cared- about privacy, they would be willing to pay for the extra care it takes to ensure that their data is private.  But, we live in a world where most people really don't care so much if everyone else knows what they are doing, so long as they are not confronted with it, or misuse the information.</p><p>Like, if you told someone at a grocery store that, to get their "club card" savings, the store would know exactly what they bought, they would say, they probably didn't care.  Now, if they got a letter from the grocery store saying, "hey, since you like strawberries, you might like our sale on blueberries", they might dig that too.  And, if they got junk mail from blueberry and strawberry growers, even that might be ok.  But, if they got an email saying, "hey, you are killing humanity because you are eating strawberries and your preference for red fruit makes you some kind of a communist", then they would be pissed off.</p><p>Bottom line is, people don't care about privacy, but they do care about having their personal information being used to hurt them.  It's pretty much the 5th amendment proposition, writ large and writ everywhere.  Nothing is really private, but, you can't have your personal information be used to attack you, and that is what the market reflects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny that one could look at this and say the markets do n't work .
The markets ARE working and that most people do n't actually care about privacy.If people -cared- about privacy , they would be willing to pay for the extra care it takes to ensure that their data is private .
But , we live in a world where most people really do n't care so much if everyone else knows what they are doing , so long as they are not confronted with it , or misuse the information.Like , if you told someone at a grocery store that , to get their " club card " savings , the store would know exactly what they bought , they would say , they probably did n't care .
Now , if they got a letter from the grocery store saying , " hey , since you like strawberries , you might like our sale on blueberries " , they might dig that too .
And , if they got junk mail from blueberry and strawberry growers , even that might be ok. But , if they got an email saying , " hey , you are killing humanity because you are eating strawberries and your preference for red fruit makes you some kind of a communist " , then they would be pissed off.Bottom line is , people do n't care about privacy , but they do care about having their personal information being used to hurt them .
It 's pretty much the 5th amendment proposition , writ large and writ everywhere .
Nothing is really private , but , you ca n't have your personal information be used to attack you , and that is what the market reflects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny that one could look at this and say the markets don't work.
The markets ARE working and that most people don't actually care about privacy.If people -cared- about privacy, they would be willing to pay for the extra care it takes to ensure that their data is private.
But, we live in a world where most people really don't care so much if everyone else knows what they are doing, so long as they are not confronted with it, or misuse the information.Like, if you told someone at a grocery store that, to get their "club card" savings, the store would know exactly what they bought, they would say, they probably didn't care.
Now, if they got a letter from the grocery store saying, "hey, since you like strawberries, you might like our sale on blueberries", they might dig that too.
And, if they got junk mail from blueberry and strawberry growers, even that might be ok.  But, if they got an email saying, "hey, you are killing humanity because you are eating strawberries and your preference for red fruit makes you some kind of a communist", then they would be pissed off.Bottom line is, people don't care about privacy, but they do care about having their personal information being used to hurt them.
It's pretty much the 5th amendment proposition, writ large and writ everywhere.
Nothing is really private, but, you can't have your personal information be used to attack you, and that is what the market reflects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28343985</id>
	<title>Re:Ferengi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245083580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>unfortunately governments care even less about your privacy than the corporate Ferengi do.</p></div><p>This is very true.</p><p>US Law requires businesses to collect your SSN (as an employee and in some financial cases, customer), many government agencies also use your SSN for identification, this has actually created a mini-market for stolen SSN's (last I heard, they were selling for around $20.00 each)</p><p>Think about what a tempting target this could be for someone earning a meager wage at one of these companies. (and with all the phishing going on.. an employee.. or even scummy business owner could EASILY get away with it)</p><p>This information is lost or stolen on an almost daily basis:<br><a href="http://datalossdb.org/" title="datalossdb.org" rel="nofollow">http://datalossdb.org</a> [datalossdb.org]</p><p>The way to protect your privacy is (duh) don't give this information to anyone! but, laws actually require you to fork it over to them.</p><p>One would hope that most businesses would just as soon not have to deal with this powder keg, yet the law forces them to collect it.</p><p>In effect, our government is the problem. Moreover, I find it strange how politicians don't seem to care (there are, afterall, a large contingent of people who are upset about this)</p><p>If the republicans could re-invent themselves as a party that believes in privacy (har, har) they'd EASILY gain control again. (but they won't do it..)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>unfortunately governments care even less about your privacy than the corporate Ferengi do.This is very true.US Law requires businesses to collect your SSN ( as an employee and in some financial cases , customer ) , many government agencies also use your SSN for identification , this has actually created a mini-market for stolen SSN 's ( last I heard , they were selling for around $ 20.00 each ) Think about what a tempting target this could be for someone earning a meager wage at one of these companies .
( and with all the phishing going on.. an employee.. or even scummy business owner could EASILY get away with it ) This information is lost or stolen on an almost daily basis : http : //datalossdb.org [ datalossdb.org ] The way to protect your privacy is ( duh ) do n't give this information to anyone !
but , laws actually require you to fork it over to them.One would hope that most businesses would just as soon not have to deal with this powder keg , yet the law forces them to collect it.In effect , our government is the problem .
Moreover , I find it strange how politicians do n't seem to care ( there are , afterall , a large contingent of people who are upset about this ) If the republicans could re-invent themselves as a party that believes in privacy ( har , har ) they 'd EASILY gain control again .
( but they wo n't do it.. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unfortunately governments care even less about your privacy than the corporate Ferengi do.This is very true.US Law requires businesses to collect your SSN (as an employee and in some financial cases, customer), many government agencies also use your SSN for identification, this has actually created a mini-market for stolen SSN's (last I heard, they were selling for around $20.00 each)Think about what a tempting target this could be for someone earning a meager wage at one of these companies.
(and with all the phishing going on.. an employee.. or even scummy business owner could EASILY get away with it)This information is lost or stolen on an almost daily basis:http://datalossdb.org [datalossdb.org]The way to protect your privacy is (duh) don't give this information to anyone!
but, laws actually require you to fork it over to them.One would hope that most businesses would just as soon not have to deal with this powder keg, yet the law forces them to collect it.In effect, our government is the problem.
Moreover, I find it strange how politicians don't seem to care (there are, afterall, a large contingent of people who are upset about this)If the republicans could re-invent themselves as a party that believes in privacy (har, har) they'd EASILY gain control again.
(but they won't do it..)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28340197</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1245058260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Signature is an exclusively Western concept.  It doesn't work in a global market.</p><p>Ever see what Japanese do for a "signature"?  They buy stock rubber stamps from kiosks on the street.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Signature is an exclusively Western concept .
It does n't work in a global market.Ever see what Japanese do for a " signature " ?
They buy stock rubber stamps from kiosks on the street .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Signature is an exclusively Western concept.
It doesn't work in a global market.Ever see what Japanese do for a "signature"?
They buy stock rubber stamps from kiosks on the street.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337067</id>
	<title>piracy?  oh, privacy</title>
	<author>Cormacus</author>
	<datestamp>1245088920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I looked at the title and read it "The 'Hidden' Cost of Piracy."  Indicative of the type of articles I expect to see on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. these days?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I looked at the title and read it " The 'Hidden ' Cost of Piracy .
" Indicative of the type of articles I expect to see on / .
these days ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I looked at the title and read it "The 'Hidden' Cost of Piracy.
"  Indicative of the type of articles I expect to see on /.
these days?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28338525</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy Costs the Consumer Directly Too</title>
	<author>kent\_eh</author>
	<datestamp>1245095580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nothing says the information you put on the form has to be entirely accurate or complete. <br>
For instance, my dear departed mother-in-law still buys a lot of things at Safeway. At least as far as they know.<br>

<br>
That said, I skew my purchasing towards places that have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian\_Tire\_money" title="wikipedia.org">less invasive</a> [wikipedia.org] "loyalty" programs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing says the information you put on the form has to be entirely accurate or complete .
For instance , my dear departed mother-in-law still buys a lot of things at Safeway .
At least as far as they know .
That said , I skew my purchasing towards places that have less invasive [ wikipedia.org ] " loyalty " programs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing says the information you put on the form has to be entirely accurate or complete.
For instance, my dear departed mother-in-law still buys a lot of things at Safeway.
At least as far as they know.
That said, I skew my purchasing towards places that have less invasive [wikipedia.org] "loyalty" programs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28340977</id>
	<title>Re:Begging the proposition.</title>
	<author>doulos05</author>
	<datestamp>1245061620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Bottom line is, people don't care about privacy, but they do care about having their personal information being used to hurt them.</p> </div><p>And therein lies the fundamental problem. In most people's minds, bad things should always happen fast. Few people realize that, in real life, most things develop slowly, over time. Until more people realize that fact, we will continue to take "short, fast, cheap, and easy" over "longer, slower, more expensive, and harder" as a default. Frankly, I worry about the privacy debate not for my own sake, but for my kid's sake. By the time they are born, it is likely that their entire lives will be recorded electronically (with the possible exception of the first few years). Where they live, what they do, etc, etc. I'm not worried someone in power today will do something bad with that, most of them aren't even aware of the possibilies. I'm worried that some politician-to-be from the class of 2009 is going to do something with it when they get into a high-level public office 15 to 20 years from now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bottom line is , people do n't care about privacy , but they do care about having their personal information being used to hurt them .
And therein lies the fundamental problem .
In most people 's minds , bad things should always happen fast .
Few people realize that , in real life , most things develop slowly , over time .
Until more people realize that fact , we will continue to take " short , fast , cheap , and easy " over " longer , slower , more expensive , and harder " as a default .
Frankly , I worry about the privacy debate not for my own sake , but for my kid 's sake .
By the time they are born , it is likely that their entire lives will be recorded electronically ( with the possible exception of the first few years ) .
Where they live , what they do , etc , etc .
I 'm not worried someone in power today will do something bad with that , most of them are n't even aware of the possibilies .
I 'm worried that some politician-to-be from the class of 2009 is going to do something with it when they get into a high-level public office 15 to 20 years from now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bottom line is, people don't care about privacy, but they do care about having their personal information being used to hurt them.
And therein lies the fundamental problem.
In most people's minds, bad things should always happen fast.
Few people realize that, in real life, most things develop slowly, over time.
Until more people realize that fact, we will continue to take "short, fast, cheap, and easy" over "longer, slower, more expensive, and harder" as a default.
Frankly, I worry about the privacy debate not for my own sake, but for my kid's sake.
By the time they are born, it is likely that their entire lives will be recorded electronically (with the possible exception of the first few years).
Where they live, what they do, etc, etc.
I'm not worried someone in power today will do something bad with that, most of them aren't even aware of the possibilies.
I'm worried that some politician-to-be from the class of 2009 is going to do something with it when they get into a high-level public office 15 to 20 years from now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337255</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28338795</id>
	<title>Simple</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1245096480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a) Get rid of all existing private regulations across all industries<br>b) Pass a new law that says privacy is assumed absolute across all matters unless permission is otherwise given<br>c)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... nothing else?</p><p>Seriously, I don't know why anything should be otherwise. No one in any industry should be allowed to share my information with anyone else unless I gave them permission.</p><p>I realize that is not how it is now, but it is how it SHOULD BE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a ) Get rid of all existing private regulations across all industriesb ) Pass a new law that says privacy is assumed absolute across all matters unless permission is otherwise givenc ) ... nothing else ? Seriously , I do n't know why anything should be otherwise .
No one in any industry should be allowed to share my information with anyone else unless I gave them permission.I realize that is not how it is now , but it is how it SHOULD BE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a) Get rid of all existing private regulations across all industriesb) Pass a new law that says privacy is assumed absolute across all matters unless permission is otherwise givenc) ... nothing else?Seriously, I don't know why anything should be otherwise.
No one in any industry should be allowed to share my information with anyone else unless I gave them permission.I realize that is not how it is now, but it is how it SHOULD BE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337079</id>
	<title>Nothing to fear ....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245089040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...if you have nothing to hide. Haha...tell that to Iranians...or the Burmese...I'd say they have plenty to fear and hide from their governments...quite justifiably.  Oh, is this offtopic? f*** offtopic moderation!!!!  how's this:  LINUX SUX.  Geeks are responsible for fascist oppression!  Now I can be a troll...cuz I trollin' trollin' trollin'...that's the way I be rollin' rollin' rollin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...if you have nothing to hide .
Haha...tell that to Iranians...or the Burmese...I 'd say they have plenty to fear and hide from their governments...quite justifiably .
Oh , is this offtopic ?
f * * * offtopic moderation ! ! ! !
how 's this : LINUX SUX .
Geeks are responsible for fascist oppression !
Now I can be a troll...cuz I trollin ' trollin ' trollin'...that 's the way I be rollin ' rollin ' rollin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...if you have nothing to hide.
Haha...tell that to Iranians...or the Burmese...I'd say they have plenty to fear and hide from their governments...quite justifiably.
Oh, is this offtopic?
f*** offtopic moderation!!!!
how's this:  LINUX SUX.
Geeks are responsible for fascist oppression!
Now I can be a troll...cuz I trollin' trollin' trollin'...that's the way I be rollin' rollin' rollin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337391</id>
	<title>Privacy Costs the Consumer Directly Too</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1245090480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are even more direct costs for consumers who wish to maintain their privacy these days. For example, how many of you have signed up for the discount card at the supermarket or the "rewards card" at any number of other businesses? Unless you have taken other steps which also cost money, such as arranging a mail drop or renting a PO Box, you have essentially "sold" your privacy in exchange for a discount on purchases. Those of us who value our privacy and wish to maintain it are frequently compelled to forgo such discounts or else pay, in time, money or effort, to set up specialized fronts to protect our "true" identities (i.e. the mail drop, aliases, corporate credit card, etc). Perhaps privacy was less expensive in the distant past, but in modern society preserving it effectively is becoming ever more labor intensive and expensive. In fact, the invasion of our privacy is now so pervasive that people give strange looks to those of us who decline to be part of "rewards", club cards, and other privacy invasive schemes in exchange for discounts; as if they cannot understand why someone wouldn't fill out a card with their real name, address, SSN, and mother's maiden name in exchange for a $5 discount.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are even more direct costs for consumers who wish to maintain their privacy these days .
For example , how many of you have signed up for the discount card at the supermarket or the " rewards card " at any number of other businesses ?
Unless you have taken other steps which also cost money , such as arranging a mail drop or renting a PO Box , you have essentially " sold " your privacy in exchange for a discount on purchases .
Those of us who value our privacy and wish to maintain it are frequently compelled to forgo such discounts or else pay , in time , money or effort , to set up specialized fronts to protect our " true " identities ( i.e .
the mail drop , aliases , corporate credit card , etc ) .
Perhaps privacy was less expensive in the distant past , but in modern society preserving it effectively is becoming ever more labor intensive and expensive .
In fact , the invasion of our privacy is now so pervasive that people give strange looks to those of us who decline to be part of " rewards " , club cards , and other privacy invasive schemes in exchange for discounts ; as if they can not understand why someone would n't fill out a card with their real name , address , SSN , and mother 's maiden name in exchange for a $ 5 discount .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are even more direct costs for consumers who wish to maintain their privacy these days.
For example, how many of you have signed up for the discount card at the supermarket or the "rewards card" at any number of other businesses?
Unless you have taken other steps which also cost money, such as arranging a mail drop or renting a PO Box, you have essentially "sold" your privacy in exchange for a discount on purchases.
Those of us who value our privacy and wish to maintain it are frequently compelled to forgo such discounts or else pay, in time, money or effort, to set up specialized fronts to protect our "true" identities (i.e.
the mail drop, aliases, corporate credit card, etc).
Perhaps privacy was less expensive in the distant past, but in modern society preserving it effectively is becoming ever more labor intensive and expensive.
In fact, the invasion of our privacy is now so pervasive that people give strange looks to those of us who decline to be part of "rewards", club cards, and other privacy invasive schemes in exchange for discounts; as if they cannot understand why someone wouldn't fill out a card with their real name, address, SSN, and mother's maiden name in exchange for a $5 discount.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28340977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28339811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28339085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337181
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28340197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28338665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337181
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28338525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28336997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28343985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28343673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28339661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28339937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28341731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28339091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28338731
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_15_1459225_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1459225.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337181
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337687
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28339085
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1459225.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28340977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337599
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1459225.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28338795
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1459225.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337237
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1459225.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1459225.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28339937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28343985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28338731
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1459225.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337067
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1459225.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28336997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337571
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1459225.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337565
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1459225.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337569
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1459225.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28338665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28341731
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1459225.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337119
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1459225.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28338197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1459225.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28338525
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1459225.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28340197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1459225.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337079
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1459225.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28339661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28343673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28339091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_15_1459225.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28337457
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_15_1459225.28339811
</commentlist>
</conversation>
