<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_17_1323207</id>
	<title>NSA Email Surveillance Pervasive and Ongoing</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1245248160000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>dkleinsc writes <i>"The NY Times has a piece about work being done by Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) and others <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/17nsa.html?\_r=1&amp;hp=&amp;pagewanted=all">to curb NSA efforts to read email and Internet traffic</a>. Here's an excerpt: 'Since April, when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009, several Congressional committees have been investigating. Those inquiries have led to concerns in Congress about the agency's ability to collect and read domestic e-mail messages of Americans on a widespread basis, officials said. Supporting that conclusion is the account of a former NSA analyst who, in a series of interviews, described being trained in 2005 for a program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of Americans' e-mail messages without court warrants. Two intelligence officials confirmed that the program was still in operation.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>dkleinsc writes " The NY Times has a piece about work being done by Congressman Rush Holt ( D-NJ ) and others to curb NSA efforts to read email and Internet traffic .
Here 's an excerpt : 'Since April , when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009 , several Congressional committees have been investigating .
Those inquiries have led to concerns in Congress about the agency 's ability to collect and read domestic e-mail messages of Americans on a widespread basis , officials said .
Supporting that conclusion is the account of a former NSA analyst who , in a series of interviews , described being trained in 2005 for a program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of Americans ' e-mail messages without court warrants .
Two intelligence officials confirmed that the program was still in operation .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dkleinsc writes "The NY Times has a piece about work being done by Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) and others to curb NSA efforts to read email and Internet traffic.
Here's an excerpt: 'Since April, when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009, several Congressional committees have been investigating.
Those inquiries have led to concerns in Congress about the agency's ability to collect and read domestic e-mail messages of Americans on a widespread basis, officials said.
Supporting that conclusion is the account of a former NSA analyst who, in a series of interviews, described being trained in 2005 for a program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of Americans' e-mail messages without court warrants.
Two intelligence officials confirmed that the program was still in operation.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363929</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, quit whining</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1245265020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Should've voted for Ron Paul.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should 've voted for Ron Paul .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should've voted for Ron Paul.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28374139</id>
	<title>This not new...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245340440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Echelon?  I know it was not for domestic, but it was said to be structured in that say, the brits could scan our stuff, and we could scan theirs... saving on all that red tape.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Echelon ?
I know it was not for domestic , but it was said to be structured in that say , the brits could scan our stuff , and we could scan theirs... saving on all that red tape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Echelon?
I know it was not for domestic, but it was said to be structured in that say, the brits could scan our stuff, and we could scan theirs... saving on all that red tape.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361733</id>
	<title>Re:SMIME</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245254700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Because there's absolutely no way whatsoever Thawte would ever<br>
&nbsp; 1) get infiltrated by an agency who has a history of doing exactly that since the cold war<br>
&nbsp; 2) turn over a private key to a secret court order accompanied by a national security letter threatening arrest<br>
&nbsp; 3) turn over the relevant keys for free just like every telco in the country did<br>
&nbsp; 4) possibly just have their scheme outright cracked.  How do they generate their keys--has anyone tested they didn't regenerate any relevant root certificate with Debian's POS crypto ciphers two years ago?  Would you know if they did?<br>
&nbsp; 5) ever have an individual in a position of trust in the company do exactly the same.</p><p>This is crypto--and you're trusting your privacy to a third party for no good reason.</p><p>Captcha: crockery</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because there 's absolutely no way whatsoever Thawte would ever   1 ) get infiltrated by an agency who has a history of doing exactly that since the cold war   2 ) turn over a private key to a secret court order accompanied by a national security letter threatening arrest   3 ) turn over the relevant keys for free just like every telco in the country did   4 ) possibly just have their scheme outright cracked .
How do they generate their keys--has anyone tested they did n't regenerate any relevant root certificate with Debian 's POS crypto ciphers two years ago ?
Would you know if they did ?
  5 ) ever have an individual in a position of trust in the company do exactly the same.This is crypto--and you 're trusting your privacy to a third party for no good reason.Captcha : crockery</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Because there's absolutely no way whatsoever Thawte would ever
  1) get infiltrated by an agency who has a history of doing exactly that since the cold war
  2) turn over a private key to a secret court order accompanied by a national security letter threatening arrest
  3) turn over the relevant keys for free just like every telco in the country did
  4) possibly just have their scheme outright cracked.
How do they generate their keys--has anyone tested they didn't regenerate any relevant root certificate with Debian's POS crypto ciphers two years ago?
Would you know if they did?
  5) ever have an individual in a position of trust in the company do exactly the same.This is crypto--and you're trusting your privacy to a third party for no good reason.Captcha: crockery</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362465</id>
	<title>Re:SMIME</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245258360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please explain how the NSA has full access to my SMIME private key when the only thing that Thawte ever saw and signed was my SMIME public key?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please explain how the NSA has full access to my SMIME private key when the only thing that Thawte ever saw and signed was my SMIME public key ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please explain how the NSA has full access to my SMIME private key when the only thing that Thawte ever saw and signed was my SMIME public key?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363319</id>
	<title>Re:My Dearest NSA,</title>
	<author>kindbud</author>
	<datestamp>1245262380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This country is for people who love freedom. Who are willing to risk their lives for it.</i></p><p>People in Iran are marching in the street and getting shot at to protest what they feel was a stolen election.  When it happened here, we brave Americans blogged about our mighty indignation, or sheepishly displayed signs no one saw from the designated protest area.</p><p>I think you have it backwards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This country is for people who love freedom .
Who are willing to risk their lives for it.People in Iran are marching in the street and getting shot at to protest what they feel was a stolen election .
When it happened here , we brave Americans blogged about our mighty indignation , or sheepishly displayed signs no one saw from the designated protest area.I think you have it backwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This country is for people who love freedom.
Who are willing to risk their lives for it.People in Iran are marching in the street and getting shot at to protest what they feel was a stolen election.
When it happened here, we brave Americans blogged about our mighty indignation, or sheepishly displayed signs no one saw from the designated protest area.I think you have it backwards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362433</id>
	<title>examined != read</title>
	<author>ArcCoyote</author>
	<datestamp>1245258180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary isn't clear about if the warantless bulk surveillance covers content or metadata</p><p>Warrantless examination of email headers and other non-content information (IPs, From, To, Subj, relaying hosts) is legal without a warrant, as it is analogous to examining the envelope of a letter without opening it.</p><p>Same deal for call records, which are also examined in bulk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary is n't clear about if the warantless bulk surveillance covers content or metadataWarrantless examination of email headers and other non-content information ( IPs , From , To , Subj , relaying hosts ) is legal without a warrant , as it is analogous to examining the envelope of a letter without opening it.Same deal for call records , which are also examined in bulk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary isn't clear about if the warantless bulk surveillance covers content or metadataWarrantless examination of email headers and other non-content information (IPs, From, To, Subj, relaying hosts) is legal without a warrant, as it is analogous to examining the envelope of a letter without opening it.Same deal for call records, which are also examined in bulk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362087</id>
	<title>Re:afraid to reply because...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245256560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I realize you're probably joking, but imagine if you were an Arab-American or Muslim. You really would have to be careful about what you write, or you might find that you're banned from flying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I realize you 're probably joking , but imagine if you were an Arab-American or Muslim .
You really would have to be careful about what you write , or you might find that you 're banned from flying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I realize you're probably joking, but imagine if you were an Arab-American or Muslim.
You really would have to be careful about what you write, or you might find that you're banned from flying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28367185</id>
	<title>Re:new email sig</title>
	<author>clambake</author>
	<datestamp>1245237600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no no no, all wrong.  Terrorists that stupid went out with the stone ages.  they at least use simple substitution code now:</p><p>happy puppies freedom nike friendship jesus smile yay</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no no no , all wrong .
Terrorists that stupid went out with the stone ages .
they at least use simple substitution code now : happy puppies freedom nike friendship jesus smile yay</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no no no, all wrong.
Terrorists that stupid went out with the stone ages.
they at least use simple substitution code now:happy puppies freedom nike friendship jesus smile yay</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361333</id>
	<title>Why is this a surprise?</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1245252660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Never Say Anything" can do anything they like, because there's no effective oversight.  They, and the CIA, are secret organizations, you don't even know who works for them.   You can't have oversight of a secret organization.
<br> <br>
Congress can bluster all the want, but all that really going to happen in the end is the TLA in question will say.  "We promise not to get caught again"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Never Say Anything " can do anything they like , because there 's no effective oversight .
They , and the CIA , are secret organizations , you do n't even know who works for them .
You ca n't have oversight of a secret organization .
Congress can bluster all the want , but all that really going to happen in the end is the TLA in question will say .
" We promise not to get caught again "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Never Say Anything" can do anything they like, because there's no effective oversight.
They, and the CIA, are secret organizations, you don't even know who works for them.
You can't have oversight of a secret organization.
Congress can bluster all the want, but all that really going to happen in the end is the TLA in question will say.
"We promise not to get caught again"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361769</id>
	<title>Not a real big surprise</title>
	<author>OrangeMonkey11</author>
	<datestamp>1245254880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext> Big brother will always be watching what you do; the only thing you can do is vote for someone you hoped would monitor and blow the whistle on activity such as these to keep it down to a somewhat manageable discomfort.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Big brother will always be watching what you do ; the only thing you can do is vote for someone you hoped would monitor and blow the whistle on activity such as these to keep it down to a somewhat manageable discomfort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Big brother will always be watching what you do; the only thing you can do is vote for someone you hoped would monitor and blow the whistle on activity such as these to keep it down to a somewhat manageable discomfort.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361469</id>
	<title>Solution: PGP</title>
	<author>headhot</author>
	<datestamp>1245253440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sure the NSA can probably crack PGP, but if every one used it, the NSA would not have the capacity to crack every message, forcing them to target communication, which is what they should be doing in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sure the NSA can probably crack PGP , but if every one used it , the NSA would not have the capacity to crack every message , forcing them to target communication , which is what they should be doing in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sure the NSA can probably crack PGP, but if every one used it, the NSA would not have the capacity to crack every message, forcing them to target communication, which is what they should be doing in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362537</id>
	<title>Re:Not All Bad</title>
	<author>anagama</author>
	<datestamp>1245258660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Considering the content of your message, no wonder you posted as AC.  Obama isn't all that better than Bush privacy wise, and his 100\% employment program for Health Insurance Executive Middle-men is just frosting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering the content of your message , no wonder you posted as AC .
Obama is n't all that better than Bush privacy wise , and his 100 \ % employment program for Health Insurance Executive Middle-men is just frosting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering the content of your message, no wonder you posted as AC.
Obama isn't all that better than Bush privacy wise, and his 100\% employment program for Health Insurance Executive Middle-men is just frosting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363481</id>
	<title>While you're unwilling to lose your comfort</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245263160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>let alone your freedom or your life, you will be unable to change your government.</p><p>No matter HOW well armed you are.</p><p>Right to bare arms notwithstanding. Why? Because to use them you risk your life in the struggle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>let alone your freedom or your life , you will be unable to change your government.No matter HOW well armed you are.Right to bare arms notwithstanding .
Why ? Because to use them you risk your life in the struggle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>let alone your freedom or your life, you will be unable to change your government.No matter HOW well armed you are.Right to bare arms notwithstanding.
Why? Because to use them you risk your life in the struggle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362259</id>
	<title>How about regular mail?</title>
	<author>Sqreater</author>
	<datestamp>1245257400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I offer these comments in the spirit of participating in a robust public discussion about a current issue of public concern: privacy before goverment secrecy. Don't blame me for being an American. Further, no insight is based on inside information, of which I have none.</p><p>NSA might be (probably is) archiving the outside of every piece of mail being processed through the United States Postal Service today. This would NOT be done by the USPS, which legitimately uses the info to route mail, then discards it normally. The data would be siphoned off and stored elsewhere in my opinion. The only place with the desire and the capacity would be the NSA. This may be legal under current law as law enforcement already can record the cover of your mail. But I'm not a lawyer. Imagine, storing two-hundred billion images a year in grayscale! Imagine if they could data mine that massive database! It could be worth billions to commercial interests nationwide. Imagine if they could kick in your door in the middle of the night because of a pattern in your received mail.</p><p>"The arbitrated result is sent back to DIOSS 1 . If the image was read successfully and a ZIP+4 delivery point identified, DIOSS 1 sends a signal to image server 8 instructing it to discard or archive the grayscale image saved for that mail piece. Information obtained from the image data, typically a header including destination information and a copy of the binary image data, is transmitted to a storage and transfer processor (STP) 4 . In the majority of cases, image data for mail pieces will be resolved and a sorting decision made at DIOSS 1 , and a POSTNET bar code label will be printed on the mail piece in DIOSS 1 in real time.

<i>The ability to archive the grayscale image may become increasingly important for forensic reasons in the event of a bio-terrorist attack. According to a further aspect of the invention, all of the sorter machines used by the USPS forward their archived image data (binary, grayscale/color, or both) to a central database which stores the image for a period of time, along with identifying information (destination address or ID number), the date and time of processing, and the identity and location of the sorting machine that handled the mail piece. This data, extremely large in volume, would be saved for a period of time before being discarded, anywhere from several days, a month, or a year or more depending on storage capacity available. Law enforcement officials working on a case wherein contaminated letters were sent through the mail could thereby determine accurately where the mail piece was processed so that decontamination can be carried out and any patterns of mailing used by the perpetrator can be analyzed.</i>(my emphasis)
</p><p>From here:  <a href="http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7145093.html" title="freepatentsonline.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7145093.html</a> [freepatentsonline.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I offer these comments in the spirit of participating in a robust public discussion about a current issue of public concern : privacy before goverment secrecy .
Do n't blame me for being an American .
Further , no insight is based on inside information , of which I have none.NSA might be ( probably is ) archiving the outside of every piece of mail being processed through the United States Postal Service today .
This would NOT be done by the USPS , which legitimately uses the info to route mail , then discards it normally .
The data would be siphoned off and stored elsewhere in my opinion .
The only place with the desire and the capacity would be the NSA .
This may be legal under current law as law enforcement already can record the cover of your mail .
But I 'm not a lawyer .
Imagine , storing two-hundred billion images a year in grayscale !
Imagine if they could data mine that massive database !
It could be worth billions to commercial interests nationwide .
Imagine if they could kick in your door in the middle of the night because of a pattern in your received mail .
" The arbitrated result is sent back to DIOSS 1 .
If the image was read successfully and a ZIP + 4 delivery point identified , DIOSS 1 sends a signal to image server 8 instructing it to discard or archive the grayscale image saved for that mail piece .
Information obtained from the image data , typically a header including destination information and a copy of the binary image data , is transmitted to a storage and transfer processor ( STP ) 4 .
In the majority of cases , image data for mail pieces will be resolved and a sorting decision made at DIOSS 1 , and a POSTNET bar code label will be printed on the mail piece in DIOSS 1 in real time .
The ability to archive the grayscale image may become increasingly important for forensic reasons in the event of a bio-terrorist attack .
According to a further aspect of the invention , all of the sorter machines used by the USPS forward their archived image data ( binary , grayscale/color , or both ) to a central database which stores the image for a period of time , along with identifying information ( destination address or ID number ) , the date and time of processing , and the identity and location of the sorting machine that handled the mail piece .
This data , extremely large in volume , would be saved for a period of time before being discarded , anywhere from several days , a month , or a year or more depending on storage capacity available .
Law enforcement officials working on a case wherein contaminated letters were sent through the mail could thereby determine accurately where the mail piece was processed so that decontamination can be carried out and any patterns of mailing used by the perpetrator can be analyzed .
( my emphasis ) From here : http : //www.freepatentsonline.com/7145093.html [ freepatentsonline.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I offer these comments in the spirit of participating in a robust public discussion about a current issue of public concern: privacy before goverment secrecy.
Don't blame me for being an American.
Further, no insight is based on inside information, of which I have none.NSA might be (probably is) archiving the outside of every piece of mail being processed through the United States Postal Service today.
This would NOT be done by the USPS, which legitimately uses the info to route mail, then discards it normally.
The data would be siphoned off and stored elsewhere in my opinion.
The only place with the desire and the capacity would be the NSA.
This may be legal under current law as law enforcement already can record the cover of your mail.
But I'm not a lawyer.
Imagine, storing two-hundred billion images a year in grayscale!
Imagine if they could data mine that massive database!
It could be worth billions to commercial interests nationwide.
Imagine if they could kick in your door in the middle of the night because of a pattern in your received mail.
"The arbitrated result is sent back to DIOSS 1 .
If the image was read successfully and a ZIP+4 delivery point identified, DIOSS 1 sends a signal to image server 8 instructing it to discard or archive the grayscale image saved for that mail piece.
Information obtained from the image data, typically a header including destination information and a copy of the binary image data, is transmitted to a storage and transfer processor (STP) 4 .
In the majority of cases, image data for mail pieces will be resolved and a sorting decision made at DIOSS 1 , and a POSTNET bar code label will be printed on the mail piece in DIOSS 1 in real time.
The ability to archive the grayscale image may become increasingly important for forensic reasons in the event of a bio-terrorist attack.
According to a further aspect of the invention, all of the sorter machines used by the USPS forward their archived image data (binary, grayscale/color, or both) to a central database which stores the image for a period of time, along with identifying information (destination address or ID number), the date and time of processing, and the identity and location of the sorting machine that handled the mail piece.
This data, extremely large in volume, would be saved for a period of time before being discarded, anywhere from several days, a month, or a year or more depending on storage capacity available.
Law enforcement officials working on a case wherein contaminated letters were sent through the mail could thereby determine accurately where the mail piece was processed so that decontamination can be carried out and any patterns of mailing used by the perpetrator can be analyzed.
(my emphasis)
From here:  http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7145093.html [freepatentsonline.com] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361391</id>
	<title>Re:SMIME</title>
	<author>wiz31337</author>
	<datestamp>1245253020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're kidding right? <br>A x.509 certificate will only slow the NSA down a few seconds (if that).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're kidding right ?
A x.509 certificate will only slow the NSA down a few seconds ( if that ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're kidding right?
A x.509 certificate will only slow the NSA down a few seconds (if that).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361823</id>
	<title>Which of our former classmates and colleagues ...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245255180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which of our former classmates and colleagues (and/or professors) work on these kinds of systems?  Thirty-something years ago I never would have imagined my peers working to undermine our freedoms by writing such code.  I just don't get it.  We were taught in classes such as "Computers in Society" things like ethics.  This was before the year 1984, and most of us had read (or were aware of the premise of) Orwell's "1984."  This would never happen, we thought.<br>
<br>
Unfortunately this, and other data mining crap has been created and 1984 is alive and well and it can't be undone.  All because some people - some programmers - thought that getting paid was better than doing what is moral and ethical in a free state.  We are no longer free, ladies and gentlemen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which of our former classmates and colleagues ( and/or professors ) work on these kinds of systems ?
Thirty-something years ago I never would have imagined my peers working to undermine our freedoms by writing such code .
I just do n't get it .
We were taught in classes such as " Computers in Society " things like ethics .
This was before the year 1984 , and most of us had read ( or were aware of the premise of ) Orwell 's " 1984 .
" This would never happen , we thought .
Unfortunately this , and other data mining crap has been created and 1984 is alive and well and it ca n't be undone .
All because some people - some programmers - thought that getting paid was better than doing what is moral and ethical in a free state .
We are no longer free , ladies and gentlemen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which of our former classmates and colleagues (and/or professors) work on these kinds of systems?
Thirty-something years ago I never would have imagined my peers working to undermine our freedoms by writing such code.
I just don't get it.
We were taught in classes such as "Computers in Society" things like ethics.
This was before the year 1984, and most of us had read (or were aware of the premise of) Orwell's "1984.
"  This would never happen, we thought.
Unfortunately this, and other data mining crap has been created and 1984 is alive and well and it can't be undone.
All because some people - some programmers - thought that getting paid was better than doing what is moral and ethical in a free state.
We are no longer free, ladies and gentlemen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361785</id>
	<title>Re:My Dearest NSA,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245255000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously - get over yourself.

And don't forget to pick up the eggs and milk your wife e-mailed you about this morning.

Signed,

The NSA</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously - get over yourself .
And do n't forget to pick up the eggs and milk your wife e-mailed you about this morning .
Signed , The NSA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously - get over yourself.
And don't forget to pick up the eggs and milk your wife e-mailed you about this morning.
Signed,

The NSA</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361799</id>
	<title>It's a postcard!</title>
	<author>Kiliani</author>
	<datestamp>1245255060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the beginning of (internet) time sending an email has been like sending a postcard. Everybody along the way handling your message can read it if they so choose. You know it, they know it. If you expect privacy, then you cannot be helped. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is not much worth here<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>I'd rather have people make sure that the NSA is not listening to my phone calls  - and you know that this is happening too, at least when you have communications going beyond the borders of the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the beginning of ( internet ) time sending an email has been like sending a postcard .
Everybody along the way handling your message can read it if they so choose .
You know it , they know it .
If you expect privacy , then you can not be helped .
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is not much worth here ...I 'd rather have people make sure that the NSA is not listening to my phone calls - and you know that this is happening too , at least when you have communications going beyond the borders of the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the beginning of (internet) time sending an email has been like sending a postcard.
Everybody along the way handling your message can read it if they so choose.
You know it, they know it.
If you expect privacy, then you cannot be helped.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is not much worth here ...I'd rather have people make sure that the NSA is not listening to my phone calls  - and you know that this is happening too, at least when you have communications going beyond the borders of the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28364303</id>
	<title>Re:Which of our former classmates and colleagues .</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1245267060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This was before the year 1984, and most of us had read (or were aware of the premise of) Orwell's "1984." This would never happen, we thought.

Unfortunately this, and other data mining crap has been created and 1984 is alive and well and it can't be undone. All because some people - some programmers - thought that getting paid was better than doing what is moral and ethical in a free state. We are no longer free, ladies and gentlemen.</p></div><p>
There was a dispute in my school district growing up whether or not 1984 should be allowed to be taught in school. The same went for Fahrenheit 451. In the end, both books were allowed, but all teachers opted not to teach them for fear of doing something too controversial. You ask who could write code that does this sort of thing? Who isn't aware of the implications of being spied on by your government? I can tell you right now that the generation that I am a part of, and those following me (I am 23 btw)  will be part of that group. So many of my peers and so many kids younger than me that I know are so willing to accept mindless consumerism and cliche generalities regarding safety and patriotism that they wouldn't even think twice about this government, our government, doing something like this. We are now being trained at a young age to accept things like this. This has been going on for years.
<br> <br>
And before anyone decides to take that anecdote to mean that my generation and those just before and just after me will be the end of the world, ask yourselves which generation is allowing those kinds of decisions to be made today.
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/End\_Lament</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was before the year 1984 , and most of us had read ( or were aware of the premise of ) Orwell 's " 1984 .
" This would never happen , we thought .
Unfortunately this , and other data mining crap has been created and 1984 is alive and well and it ca n't be undone .
All because some people - some programmers - thought that getting paid was better than doing what is moral and ethical in a free state .
We are no longer free , ladies and gentlemen .
There was a dispute in my school district growing up whether or not 1984 should be allowed to be taught in school .
The same went for Fahrenheit 451 .
In the end , both books were allowed , but all teachers opted not to teach them for fear of doing something too controversial .
You ask who could write code that does this sort of thing ?
Who is n't aware of the implications of being spied on by your government ?
I can tell you right now that the generation that I am a part of , and those following me ( I am 23 btw ) will be part of that group .
So many of my peers and so many kids younger than me that I know are so willing to accept mindless consumerism and cliche generalities regarding safety and patriotism that they would n't even think twice about this government , our government , doing something like this .
We are now being trained at a young age to accept things like this .
This has been going on for years .
And before anyone decides to take that anecdote to mean that my generation and those just before and just after me will be the end of the world , ask yourselves which generation is allowing those kinds of decisions to be made today .
/End \ _Lament</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was before the year 1984, and most of us had read (or were aware of the premise of) Orwell's "1984.
" This would never happen, we thought.
Unfortunately this, and other data mining crap has been created and 1984 is alive and well and it can't be undone.
All because some people - some programmers - thought that getting paid was better than doing what is moral and ethical in a free state.
We are no longer free, ladies and gentlemen.
There was a dispute in my school district growing up whether or not 1984 should be allowed to be taught in school.
The same went for Fahrenheit 451.
In the end, both books were allowed, but all teachers opted not to teach them for fear of doing something too controversial.
You ask who could write code that does this sort of thing?
Who isn't aware of the implications of being spied on by your government?
I can tell you right now that the generation that I am a part of, and those following me (I am 23 btw)  will be part of that group.
So many of my peers and so many kids younger than me that I know are so willing to accept mindless consumerism and cliche generalities regarding safety and patriotism that they wouldn't even think twice about this government, our government, doing something like this.
We are now being trained at a young age to accept things like this.
This has been going on for years.
And before anyone decides to take that anecdote to mean that my generation and those just before and just after me will be the end of the world, ask yourselves which generation is allowing those kinds of decisions to be made today.
/End\_Lament
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425</id>
	<title>My Dearest NSA,</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1245253140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My Dearest NSA,</p><p>Allow me to use, for the first time in my life, a turn of a phrase that I generally find to be rather repugnant:</p><p>If you fear freedom so much, why don't you move to Iran?</p><p>This country is for people who love freedom. Who are willing to risk their lives for it. You scared, little, cowards -- shivering in your pajamas at night wetting your bed because you don't know everything I am thinking, all the time -- have no right place in this, the Founding Fathers' most extraordinary experiment.</p><p>You think you are more trustworthy than The Constitution? I do not trust you as much as the average crazy screaming panhandler on the corner, let alone as much as the average free American Citizen. You are too scared to be trusted. Scared people act unpredictably. And certainly I do not trust you as much as what is perhaps the most inspired legal document in history.</p><p>You are the threat to the American way of life. Not us. Your cowardice eats away at us, and our great society, like a disease. If you can't handle freedom, move to a master planned community with big gates, or even one of the many authoritarian regimes around the world. But don't shit all over what makes this country great just because you can't handle freedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My Dearest NSA,Allow me to use , for the first time in my life , a turn of a phrase that I generally find to be rather repugnant : If you fear freedom so much , why do n't you move to Iran ? This country is for people who love freedom .
Who are willing to risk their lives for it .
You scared , little , cowards -- shivering in your pajamas at night wetting your bed because you do n't know everything I am thinking , all the time -- have no right place in this , the Founding Fathers ' most extraordinary experiment.You think you are more trustworthy than The Constitution ?
I do not trust you as much as the average crazy screaming panhandler on the corner , let alone as much as the average free American Citizen .
You are too scared to be trusted .
Scared people act unpredictably .
And certainly I do not trust you as much as what is perhaps the most inspired legal document in history.You are the threat to the American way of life .
Not us .
Your cowardice eats away at us , and our great society , like a disease .
If you ca n't handle freedom , move to a master planned community with big gates , or even one of the many authoritarian regimes around the world .
But do n't shit all over what makes this country great just because you ca n't handle freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Dearest NSA,Allow me to use, for the first time in my life, a turn of a phrase that I generally find to be rather repugnant:If you fear freedom so much, why don't you move to Iran?This country is for people who love freedom.
Who are willing to risk their lives for it.
You scared, little, cowards -- shivering in your pajamas at night wetting your bed because you don't know everything I am thinking, all the time -- have no right place in this, the Founding Fathers' most extraordinary experiment.You think you are more trustworthy than The Constitution?
I do not trust you as much as the average crazy screaming panhandler on the corner, let alone as much as the average free American Citizen.
You are too scared to be trusted.
Scared people act unpredictably.
And certainly I do not trust you as much as what is perhaps the most inspired legal document in history.You are the threat to the American way of life.
Not us.
Your cowardice eats away at us, and our great society, like a disease.
If you can't handle freedom, move to a master planned community with big gates, or even one of the many authoritarian regimes around the world.
But don't shit all over what makes this country great just because you can't handle freedom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28365865</id>
	<title>Re:My Dearest NSA,</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1245231060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We know that the sheep live in denial, which is what makes them sheep.</i></p><p>Indeed.</p><p><i>The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours. </i></p><p>If you believe that, then you're just a sheep who has accepted the existence of the wolf and the need for the sheepdog, but can't handle the uncomfortable truth that a sheepdog improperly trained or improperly supervised has the same sharp teeth and taste for meat as the wolf, and that some sheepdogs are really just wolves that can do the right tricks to get the rancher to let them in the gate.</p><p>So you replace the comforting lie that the wolf will never come with the comforting lie that the sheepdog is a perfect shield against the wolf that will never turn its fangs on you.</p><p>And then when the sheepdog shows its true colors and bites you, your braying goes unheeded.  You find that the rancher, the other sheepdogs, and even other sheep all support the wolf-in-sheepdogs-clothing.  They all say you're a silly sheep for saying bad things about the sheepdog, because sheepdogs keep wolves away, and a sheepdog is by definition not a wolf so how could the sheepdog have done something bad?</p><p>This is exactly what's happening here.  The sheepdogs are turning on the sheep, and some of the sheep are defending them.  You see, in real life, you can't tell a sheepdog from a wolf by looking at them.  You try to get sheepdogs, but wolves are attracted to the same positions where they can abuse the power and authority over the sheep given them by the rancher (and because in reality these are humans, not canines, their nature as one or the other is not fixed).  Thus, we have checks, balances, and oversight over the workings of the sheepdogs.</p><p>Oone of the most basic is the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.  And the NSA is flagrantly violating it.  It is violating one of the basic freedoms of our country that the sheepdogs are supposed to be protecting.  At that point they are not sheepdogs.  They are wolves given the authority of sheepdogs.</p><p>So let me know when the NSA is forced to cease this behavior, and when the agents responsible for doing it and the supervisors who authorized it are all held accountable, because in the meantime "the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep... The world cannot work any other way" is a farcical lie.  And your self-delusion is made all the more apparent by trying to defend the wolves-in-sheepdogs-clothing with this blatant lie, in an article where the proof of its falsehood is staring us in the face.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We know that the sheep live in denial , which is what makes them sheep.Indeed.The difference , though , is that the sheepdog must not , can not and will not ever harm the sheep .
Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed .
The world can not work any other way , at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours .
If you believe that , then you 're just a sheep who has accepted the existence of the wolf and the need for the sheepdog , but ca n't handle the uncomfortable truth that a sheepdog improperly trained or improperly supervised has the same sharp teeth and taste for meat as the wolf , and that some sheepdogs are really just wolves that can do the right tricks to get the rancher to let them in the gate.So you replace the comforting lie that the wolf will never come with the comforting lie that the sheepdog is a perfect shield against the wolf that will never turn its fangs on you.And then when the sheepdog shows its true colors and bites you , your braying goes unheeded .
You find that the rancher , the other sheepdogs , and even other sheep all support the wolf-in-sheepdogs-clothing .
They all say you 're a silly sheep for saying bad things about the sheepdog , because sheepdogs keep wolves away , and a sheepdog is by definition not a wolf so how could the sheepdog have done something bad ? This is exactly what 's happening here .
The sheepdogs are turning on the sheep , and some of the sheep are defending them .
You see , in real life , you ca n't tell a sheepdog from a wolf by looking at them .
You try to get sheepdogs , but wolves are attracted to the same positions where they can abuse the power and authority over the sheep given them by the rancher ( and because in reality these are humans , not canines , their nature as one or the other is not fixed ) .
Thus , we have checks , balances , and oversight over the workings of the sheepdogs.Oone of the most basic is the 4th Amendment to the Constitution .
And the NSA is flagrantly violating it .
It is violating one of the basic freedoms of our country that the sheepdogs are supposed to be protecting .
At that point they are not sheepdogs .
They are wolves given the authority of sheepdogs.So let me know when the NSA is forced to cease this behavior , and when the agents responsible for doing it and the supervisors who authorized it are all held accountable , because in the meantime " the sheepdog must not , can not and will not ever harm the sheep... The world can not work any other way " is a farcical lie .
And your self-delusion is made all the more apparent by trying to defend the wolves-in-sheepdogs-clothing with this blatant lie , in an article where the proof of its falsehood is staring us in the face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We know that the sheep live in denial, which is what makes them sheep.Indeed.The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep.
Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed.
The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
If you believe that, then you're just a sheep who has accepted the existence of the wolf and the need for the sheepdog, but can't handle the uncomfortable truth that a sheepdog improperly trained or improperly supervised has the same sharp teeth and taste for meat as the wolf, and that some sheepdogs are really just wolves that can do the right tricks to get the rancher to let them in the gate.So you replace the comforting lie that the wolf will never come with the comforting lie that the sheepdog is a perfect shield against the wolf that will never turn its fangs on you.And then when the sheepdog shows its true colors and bites you, your braying goes unheeded.
You find that the rancher, the other sheepdogs, and even other sheep all support the wolf-in-sheepdogs-clothing.
They all say you're a silly sheep for saying bad things about the sheepdog, because sheepdogs keep wolves away, and a sheepdog is by definition not a wolf so how could the sheepdog have done something bad?This is exactly what's happening here.
The sheepdogs are turning on the sheep, and some of the sheep are defending them.
You see, in real life, you can't tell a sheepdog from a wolf by looking at them.
You try to get sheepdogs, but wolves are attracted to the same positions where they can abuse the power and authority over the sheep given them by the rancher (and because in reality these are humans, not canines, their nature as one or the other is not fixed).
Thus, we have checks, balances, and oversight over the workings of the sheepdogs.Oone of the most basic is the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.
And the NSA is flagrantly violating it.
It is violating one of the basic freedoms of our country that the sheepdogs are supposed to be protecting.
At that point they are not sheepdogs.
They are wolves given the authority of sheepdogs.So let me know when the NSA is forced to cease this behavior, and when the agents responsible for doing it and the supervisors who authorized it are all held accountable, because in the meantime "the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep... The world cannot work any other way" is a farcical lie.
And your self-delusion is made all the more apparent by trying to defend the wolves-in-sheepdogs-clothing with this blatant lie, in an article where the proof of its falsehood is staring us in the face.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361401</id>
	<title>Re:SMIME</title>
	<author>sshir</author>
	<datestamp>1245253080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is - almost nobody uses this. So you can be singled out on that fact alone.
<br> <br>
As a poor man's solution, one can use Gmail over https (they have that option now): in my case all my friends have gmail accounts. It's not easily accessible to the government (assuming google's internal traffic is not tapped).
This of course exposes you to Google, but at least there is a good chance, that it's not subject to warrantless wiretaps.
<br> <br>
On top of that you can encrypt so google is off too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is - almost nobody uses this .
So you can be singled out on that fact alone .
As a poor man 's solution , one can use Gmail over https ( they have that option now ) : in my case all my friends have gmail accounts .
It 's not easily accessible to the government ( assuming google 's internal traffic is not tapped ) .
This of course exposes you to Google , but at least there is a good chance , that it 's not subject to warrantless wiretaps .
On top of that you can encrypt so google is off too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is - almost nobody uses this.
So you can be singled out on that fact alone.
As a poor man's solution, one can use Gmail over https (they have that option now): in my case all my friends have gmail accounts.
It's not easily accessible to the government (assuming google's internal traffic is not tapped).
This of course exposes you to Google, but at least there is a good chance, that it's not subject to warrantless wiretaps.
On top of that you can encrypt so google is off too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361365</id>
	<title>Twss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245252900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what she said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what she said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what she said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363883</id>
	<title>Re:My Dearest NSA,</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1245264840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bob, if you want the NSA to read that, email that to someone (doesn't matter who, could even be yourself).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bob , if you want the NSA to read that , email that to someone ( does n't matter who , could even be yourself ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bob, if you want the NSA to read that, email that to someone (doesn't matter who, could even be yourself).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362147</id>
	<title>Bugmenot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245256860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those of us who don't have NYTimes accounts, remember <a href="http://www.bugmenot.com/view/nytimes.com" title="bugmenot.com" rel="nofollow">bugmenot</a> [bugmenot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those of us who do n't have NYTimes accounts , remember bugmenot [ bugmenot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those of us who don't have NYTimes accounts, remember bugmenot [bugmenot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361953</id>
	<title>Re:Solution: PGP</title>
	<author>Spatial</author>
	<datestamp>1245255780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that it has to be integrated, automatic and completely transparent.  I haven't used it myself but I assume it's something that needs to be present at both ends.<br> <br>

The people that comprise the majority of email users are completely ignorant of such things. If they're required to understand <i>anything</i>, they'll take the easy way and it'll fail to take off.  Which is where we are now.<br> <br>

Encryption has to be the easier way to go.  It needs to be the default in popular email clients, Gmail, MSN, etc.  Hell if I know how to make that happen though.  It's not like privacy advocates have the money to create a marketing campaign to make it 'cool' or anything...  And corporations don't rock the boat unless it really helps them a lot, which this wouldn't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that it has to be integrated , automatic and completely transparent .
I have n't used it myself but I assume it 's something that needs to be present at both ends .
The people that comprise the majority of email users are completely ignorant of such things .
If they 're required to understand anything , they 'll take the easy way and it 'll fail to take off .
Which is where we are now .
Encryption has to be the easier way to go .
It needs to be the default in popular email clients , Gmail , MSN , etc .
Hell if I know how to make that happen though .
It 's not like privacy advocates have the money to create a marketing campaign to make it 'cool ' or anything... And corporations do n't rock the boat unless it really helps them a lot , which this would n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that it has to be integrated, automatic and completely transparent.
I haven't used it myself but I assume it's something that needs to be present at both ends.
The people that comprise the majority of email users are completely ignorant of such things.
If they're required to understand anything, they'll take the easy way and it'll fail to take off.
Which is where we are now.
Encryption has to be the easier way to go.
It needs to be the default in popular email clients, Gmail, MSN, etc.
Hell if I know how to make that happen though.
It's not like privacy advocates have the money to create a marketing campaign to make it 'cool' or anything...  And corporations don't rock the boat unless it really helps them a lot, which this wouldn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28373011</id>
	<title>Re:NSA line eater</title>
	<author>Chiindi</author>
	<datestamp>1245335580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To help out the government during this time of need, I have simply put the NSA on my CC: list. It saves time and money!</htmltext>
<tokenext>To help out the government during this time of need , I have simply put the NSA on my CC : list .
It saves time and money !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To help out the government during this time of need, I have simply put the NSA on my CC: list.
It saves time and money!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361173</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362803</id>
	<title>Re:SMIME</title>
	<author>iluvcapra</author>
	<datestamp>1245259980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think they can get through a 1024-bit key <em>that</em> quickly, unless they have technology that is plain science fiction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think they can get through a 1024-bit key that quickly , unless they have technology that is plain science fiction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think they can get through a 1024-bit key that quickly, unless they have technology that is plain science fiction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363661</id>
	<title>Re:new email sig</title>
	<author>http</author>
	<datestamp>1245263820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will work a LOT better if you pepper these words throughout your messages instead of at the end.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will work a LOT better if you pepper these words throughout your messages instead of at the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will work a LOT better if you pepper these words throughout your messages instead of at the end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362709</id>
	<title>Re:SMIME</title>
	<author>matrim99</author>
	<datestamp>1245259500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's all it takes to essentially opt out of these trolling expeditions.<br>If they decide to focus on you specifically, then you've got other problems.</p></div><p>Call me a cynic, but I'd think that anyone who is encrypting emails would not only get an automatic "opt in" to any and all trolling activity, but also get a free pass to the front of the line.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's all it takes to essentially opt out of these trolling expeditions.If they decide to focus on you specifically , then you 've got other problems.Call me a cynic , but I 'd think that anyone who is encrypting emails would not only get an automatic " opt in " to any and all trolling activity , but also get a free pass to the front of the line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's all it takes to essentially opt out of these trolling expeditions.If they decide to focus on you specifically, then you've got other problems.Call me a cynic, but I'd think that anyone who is encrypting emails would not only get an automatic "opt in" to any and all trolling activity, but also get a free pass to the front of the line.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361941</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362121</id>
	<title>Re:SMIME</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245256740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're kidding right?<br>A x.509 certificate will only slow the NSA down a few seconds (if that).</p></div><p>AES with 256-bit keys is rated for TOP SECRET. Use the NIST-recommended standards for encryption, because that's what the government itself uses.</p><p>If they really want to monitor you they will (e.g. TEMPEST), but there's no sense have data in-flight (and at-rest on your mail server) be accessible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're kidding right ? A x.509 certificate will only slow the NSA down a few seconds ( if that ) .AES with 256-bit keys is rated for TOP SECRET .
Use the NIST-recommended standards for encryption , because that 's what the government itself uses.If they really want to monitor you they will ( e.g .
TEMPEST ) , but there 's no sense have data in-flight ( and at-rest on your mail server ) be accessible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're kidding right?A x.509 certificate will only slow the NSA down a few seconds (if that).AES with 256-bit keys is rated for TOP SECRET.
Use the NIST-recommended standards for encryption, because that's what the government itself uses.If they really want to monitor you they will (e.g.
TEMPEST), but there's no sense have data in-flight (and at-rest on your mail server) be accessible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28366845</id>
	<title>Problem at the cursory glance</title>
	<author>Calyth</author>
	<datestamp>1245235980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NSA can't guarantee that they're collecting American citizens' email, even if they try.</p><p>Anyone want to propose a solution?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NSA ca n't guarantee that they 're collecting American citizens ' email , even if they try.Anyone want to propose a solution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NSA can't guarantee that they're collecting American citizens' email, even if they try.Anyone want to propose a solution?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241</id>
	<title>SMIME</title>
	<author>iluvcapra</author>
	<datestamp>1245252180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't have to wait for government action to keep the NSA from reading you personal email.  Get your friends and family a Freemail x.509 cert from Thawte (no cost, a Verisign cert costs $30/yr) and use S/MIME.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have to wait for government action to keep the NSA from reading you personal email .
Get your friends and family a Freemail x.509 cert from Thawte ( no cost , a Verisign cert costs $ 30/yr ) and use S/MIME .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have to wait for government action to keep the NSA from reading you personal email.
Get your friends and family a Freemail x.509 cert from Thawte (no cost, a Verisign cert costs $30/yr) and use S/MIME.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361643</id>
	<title>Re:SMIME</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245254340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hate to burst your bubble. But the NSA have full access to the keys. Why do you think Mark Shuttleworth (Now of Ubuntu fame) was paid US$ 575 Million for Thawte? Becuase he controlled a sizable portion of the market, even though physically it was a very small operation. <br>
There is a whole history here but in short, Verisign was started by several ex CIA directors shortly after the Clipper chip program failed. The Clipper chip was an encryption chip designed to handle all encryption. In short the CIA would legally be able to access your keys on the chip. there was a public outcry and the program was shelved. No one expected Mark Shuttleworth to gain such a large portion of the market so rapidly, so they paid him a small fortune to get full control of the market.  So basically if you want to rely on personal encryption, use PGP, because certs from Thawte and Verisign are not secure from the prying eyes of government agencies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to burst your bubble .
But the NSA have full access to the keys .
Why do you think Mark Shuttleworth ( Now of Ubuntu fame ) was paid US $ 575 Million for Thawte ?
Becuase he controlled a sizable portion of the market , even though physically it was a very small operation .
There is a whole history here but in short , Verisign was started by several ex CIA directors shortly after the Clipper chip program failed .
The Clipper chip was an encryption chip designed to handle all encryption .
In short the CIA would legally be able to access your keys on the chip .
there was a public outcry and the program was shelved .
No one expected Mark Shuttleworth to gain such a large portion of the market so rapidly , so they paid him a small fortune to get full control of the market .
So basically if you want to rely on personal encryption , use PGP , because certs from Thawte and Verisign are not secure from the prying eyes of government agencies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to burst your bubble.
But the NSA have full access to the keys.
Why do you think Mark Shuttleworth (Now of Ubuntu fame) was paid US$ 575 Million for Thawte?
Becuase he controlled a sizable portion of the market, even though physically it was a very small operation.
There is a whole history here but in short, Verisign was started by several ex CIA directors shortly after the Clipper chip program failed.
The Clipper chip was an encryption chip designed to handle all encryption.
In short the CIA would legally be able to access your keys on the chip.
there was a public outcry and the program was shelved.
No one expected Mark Shuttleworth to gain such a large portion of the market so rapidly, so they paid him a small fortune to get full control of the market.
So basically if you want to rely on personal encryption, use PGP, because certs from Thawte and Verisign are not secure from the prying eyes of government agencies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28365345</id>
	<title>Re:SMASH IMPERIALISM WITH WORKERS REVOLUTION!</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1245271620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whoa!  When did The Hulk become a Marxist?  I'd be afraid, capitalists.  Che Guevara doesn't have anything on the Hulk as a revolutionary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoa !
When did The Hulk become a Marxist ?
I 'd be afraid , capitalists .
Che Guevara does n't have anything on the Hulk as a revolutionary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoa!
When did The Hulk become a Marxist?
I'd be afraid, capitalists.
Che Guevara doesn't have anything on the Hulk as a revolutionary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362155</id>
	<title>Re:My Dearest NSA,</title>
	<author>Black Sabbath</author>
	<datestamp>1245256860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow! One of the most eloquent Slashdot posts in defense of the Republic that I've read in a while.<br><br>However one of your assumptions is fading fast. When you state:<br>&gt; This country is for people who love freedom. Who are willing to risk their lives for it.<br>This assumes that:<br>(a) people understand "freedom" as the founding fathers understood it and not merely freedom to consume whatever the talking heads tell us.<br>(b) people are actually willing to risk their lives for it.<br><br>Unfortunately, I think that the transformation of the enlightened Republic to the Idiocracy portrayed in film is well underway. In addition I believe that even those that still value true freedom are increasingly less willing to risk their lives for it. Hell, most aren't even willing to risk their comfort for it. A society that is too comfortable with itself is perfectly setup for golden handcuffs.<br><br>Ironically, in Iran right now, people actually ARE putting themselves in harms way to protest apparent fraud on the part of the executive.<br><br>I sympathise 100\% with what you've written but sadly I'm convinced that its almost too late for the republic to be saved without "refreshing the tree of liberty". The sad part is that a lot of people would read your post and wonder why you're over-reacting. They think of "Democracy" and "Freedom" as mere trademarks associated with the US of A. Meanwhile, every pillar of the constitution is under attack and while some are noticing, very few are standing up.<br><br>Wake up people! Look at what's happening in Iran - the lesson is this: no matter how powerless you think you are, governments of all persuasions fear nothing more than a populace aroused to anger. To quote Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?"</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow !
One of the most eloquent Slashdot posts in defense of the Republic that I 've read in a while.However one of your assumptions is fading fast .
When you state : &gt; This country is for people who love freedom .
Who are willing to risk their lives for it.This assumes that : ( a ) people understand " freedom " as the founding fathers understood it and not merely freedom to consume whatever the talking heads tell us .
( b ) people are actually willing to risk their lives for it.Unfortunately , I think that the transformation of the enlightened Republic to the Idiocracy portrayed in film is well underway .
In addition I believe that even those that still value true freedom are increasingly less willing to risk their lives for it .
Hell , most are n't even willing to risk their comfort for it .
A society that is too comfortable with itself is perfectly setup for golden handcuffs.Ironically , in Iran right now , people actually ARE putting themselves in harms way to protest apparent fraud on the part of the executive.I sympathise 100 \ % with what you 've written but sadly I 'm convinced that its almost too late for the republic to be saved without " refreshing the tree of liberty " .
The sad part is that a lot of people would read your post and wonder why you 're over-reacting .
They think of " Democracy " and " Freedom " as mere trademarks associated with the US of A. Meanwhile , every pillar of the constitution is under attack and while some are noticing , very few are standing up.Wake up people !
Look at what 's happening in Iran - the lesson is this : no matter how powerless you think you are , governments of all persuasions fear nothing more than a populace aroused to anger .
To quote Jefferson : " What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow!
One of the most eloquent Slashdot posts in defense of the Republic that I've read in a while.However one of your assumptions is fading fast.
When you state:&gt; This country is for people who love freedom.
Who are willing to risk their lives for it.This assumes that:(a) people understand "freedom" as the founding fathers understood it and not merely freedom to consume whatever the talking heads tell us.
(b) people are actually willing to risk their lives for it.Unfortunately, I think that the transformation of the enlightened Republic to the Idiocracy portrayed in film is well underway.
In addition I believe that even those that still value true freedom are increasingly less willing to risk their lives for it.
Hell, most aren't even willing to risk their comfort for it.
A society that is too comfortable with itself is perfectly setup for golden handcuffs.Ironically, in Iran right now, people actually ARE putting themselves in harms way to protest apparent fraud on the part of the executive.I sympathise 100\% with what you've written but sadly I'm convinced that its almost too late for the republic to be saved without "refreshing the tree of liberty".
The sad part is that a lot of people would read your post and wonder why you're over-reacting.
They think of "Democracy" and "Freedom" as mere trademarks associated with the US of A. Meanwhile, every pillar of the constitution is under attack and while some are noticing, very few are standing up.Wake up people!
Look at what's happening in Iran - the lesson is this: no matter how powerless you think you are, governments of all persuasions fear nothing more than a populace aroused to anger.
To quote Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361647</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1245254340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's pretty absurd that people are complaining about the U.S. government scanning emails.</p><p>emails are sent in the clear.  If you really cared, you'd encrypt it all.  Lots more people than the government have been and will be looking at your email, it's inherent in the nature of the system.</p><p>The truth is that almost nothing anyone sends via email is worthy of this furor.  Again, anything that you don't want others to see you should have encrypted or sent by other means (we still have a postal system you know).</p><p>I wasn't going to throw a post into the sea of frothing anger, but after reading the other responses I realized someone has to be the voice of sanity at Slashdot, no matter how they are flamed or hated for it.</p><p>So why should you not be upset about this?  What is the harm?</p><p>The harm comes from noise about things that don't matter, drowning out things that do.  Complaining about government intrusion into an inherently public protocol makes it harder to notice instances of true abuse of privacy.  By crying at every shadow you doom real issues to remain in obscurity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's pretty absurd that people are complaining about the U.S. government scanning emails.emails are sent in the clear .
If you really cared , you 'd encrypt it all .
Lots more people than the government have been and will be looking at your email , it 's inherent in the nature of the system.The truth is that almost nothing anyone sends via email is worthy of this furor .
Again , anything that you do n't want others to see you should have encrypted or sent by other means ( we still have a postal system you know ) .I was n't going to throw a post into the sea of frothing anger , but after reading the other responses I realized someone has to be the voice of sanity at Slashdot , no matter how they are flamed or hated for it.So why should you not be upset about this ?
What is the harm ? The harm comes from noise about things that do n't matter , drowning out things that do .
Complaining about government intrusion into an inherently public protocol makes it harder to notice instances of true abuse of privacy .
By crying at every shadow you doom real issues to remain in obscurity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's pretty absurd that people are complaining about the U.S. government scanning emails.emails are sent in the clear.
If you really cared, you'd encrypt it all.
Lots more people than the government have been and will be looking at your email, it's inherent in the nature of the system.The truth is that almost nothing anyone sends via email is worthy of this furor.
Again, anything that you don't want others to see you should have encrypted or sent by other means (we still have a postal system you know).I wasn't going to throw a post into the sea of frothing anger, but after reading the other responses I realized someone has to be the voice of sanity at Slashdot, no matter how they are flamed or hated for it.So why should you not be upset about this?
What is the harm?The harm comes from noise about things that don't matter, drowning out things that do.
Complaining about government intrusion into an inherently public protocol makes it harder to notice instances of true abuse of privacy.
By crying at every shadow you doom real issues to remain in obscurity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361975</id>
	<title>Email was never secure to begin with...</title>
	<author>Logical Zebra</author>
	<datestamp>1245255900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember, email is sent in <em>cleartext</em>, unless it's encrypted, which most of us don't actually do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember , email is sent in cleartext , unless it 's encrypted , which most of us do n't actually do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember, email is sent in cleartext, unless it's encrypted, which most of us don't actually do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361773</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, quit whining</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245254880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Start firing congressmen and senators in significant numbers, and things will change. Otherwise, quit the damn whining.</p></div>

</blockquote><p>
I live in Orange County, California, which is famous as a bastion of Reagan-style conservatism. In the last general election, my congressman, Ed Royce, outdid his Democratic opponent in fundraising by more than 10 to 1, and won with 67\% of the vote.
Your prescription is not going to work here in my district. Vote the bum out? If you tell my neighbors that the NSA is reading people's email, they'll probably say that's great, because it's a good way to fight terrorism. My district isn't unusual, either. The reason incumbents in the US almost always get reelected is that we have a two-party system with geographically defined election districts, and party loyalty is highly correlated with geography.
</p><p>
It's a majoritarian fallacy to say that if the minority's rights are violated, the minority should just vote to have them not be violated anymore. The reason we have a constitution is to protect the rights of the minority, even when violating them is a very popular, majority position.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Start firing congressmen and senators in significant numbers , and things will change .
Otherwise , quit the damn whining .
I live in Orange County , California , which is famous as a bastion of Reagan-style conservatism .
In the last general election , my congressman , Ed Royce , outdid his Democratic opponent in fundraising by more than 10 to 1 , and won with 67 \ % of the vote .
Your prescription is not going to work here in my district .
Vote the bum out ?
If you tell my neighbors that the NSA is reading people 's email , they 'll probably say that 's great , because it 's a good way to fight terrorism .
My district is n't unusual , either .
The reason incumbents in the US almost always get reelected is that we have a two-party system with geographically defined election districts , and party loyalty is highly correlated with geography .
It 's a majoritarian fallacy to say that if the minority 's rights are violated , the minority should just vote to have them not be violated anymore .
The reason we have a constitution is to protect the rights of the minority , even when violating them is a very popular , majority position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Start firing congressmen and senators in significant numbers, and things will change.
Otherwise, quit the damn whining.
I live in Orange County, California, which is famous as a bastion of Reagan-style conservatism.
In the last general election, my congressman, Ed Royce, outdid his Democratic opponent in fundraising by more than 10 to 1, and won with 67\% of the vote.
Your prescription is not going to work here in my district.
Vote the bum out?
If you tell my neighbors that the NSA is reading people's email, they'll probably say that's great, because it's a good way to fight terrorism.
My district isn't unusual, either.
The reason incumbents in the US almost always get reelected is that we have a two-party system with geographically defined election districts, and party loyalty is highly correlated with geography.
It's a majoritarian fallacy to say that if the minority's rights are violated, the minority should just vote to have them not be violated anymore.
The reason we have a constitution is to protect the rights of the minority, even when violating them is a very popular, majority position.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362387</id>
	<title>Re:Solution: PGP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245257940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;sure the NSA can probably crack PGP</p><p>Please check what you say before posting. The NSA CAN NOT crack PGP. If you read either "Crypto" or Bruce Schneier's "Applied Cryptography" you will see that even the NSA acknowledged that PGP was uncrackable within some reasonable amount of time, because PGP uses at least 128-bit keys, as opposed to DES which used 56-bit, RSA, or the other weak algorithms.<br>With a good passphrase, like three of your favorite quotes strung together (see "The Art of Intrusion") the NSA will not be able to read your personal stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; sure the NSA can probably crack PGPPlease check what you say before posting .
The NSA CAN NOT crack PGP .
If you read either " Crypto " or Bruce Schneier 's " Applied Cryptography " you will see that even the NSA acknowledged that PGP was uncrackable within some reasonable amount of time , because PGP uses at least 128-bit keys , as opposed to DES which used 56-bit , RSA , or the other weak algorithms.With a good passphrase , like three of your favorite quotes strung together ( see " The Art of Intrusion " ) the NSA will not be able to read your personal stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;sure the NSA can probably crack PGPPlease check what you say before posting.
The NSA CAN NOT crack PGP.
If you read either "Crypto" or Bruce Schneier's "Applied Cryptography" you will see that even the NSA acknowledged that PGP was uncrackable within some reasonable amount of time, because PGP uses at least 128-bit keys, as opposed to DES which used 56-bit, RSA, or the other weak algorithms.With a good passphrase, like three of your favorite quotes strung together (see "The Art of Intrusion") the NSA will not be able to read your personal stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363035</id>
	<title>Re:Which of our former classmates and colleagues .</title>
	<author>Eli Gottlieb</author>
	<datestamp>1245261120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi, let me tell you about the research lunch I was at yesterday.  A whole bunch of us undergrad researchers were presenting the beginnings of our research for the summer.  One guy got up and told us about using cameras, microphones, and sophisticated software to monitor the behavior of old people so that danger could be detected by computer and they could stay in their own home.  At the end I said, "So... Big Brother,", and he replied "Yeah".  Nobody wants to create tyranny, but people find so-called "ethical" applications that become excuses for developing the mechanisms of tyranny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi , let me tell you about the research lunch I was at yesterday .
A whole bunch of us undergrad researchers were presenting the beginnings of our research for the summer .
One guy got up and told us about using cameras , microphones , and sophisticated software to monitor the behavior of old people so that danger could be detected by computer and they could stay in their own home .
At the end I said , " So... Big Brother , " , and he replied " Yeah " .
Nobody wants to create tyranny , but people find so-called " ethical " applications that become excuses for developing the mechanisms of tyranny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi, let me tell you about the research lunch I was at yesterday.
A whole bunch of us undergrad researchers were presenting the beginnings of our research for the summer.
One guy got up and told us about using cameras, microphones, and sophisticated software to monitor the behavior of old people so that danger could be detected by computer and they could stay in their own home.
At the end I said, "So... Big Brother,", and he replied "Yeah".
Nobody wants to create tyranny, but people find so-called "ethical" applications that become excuses for developing the mechanisms of tyranny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361295</id>
	<title>More From The Atlantic</title>
	<author>wiredog</author>
	<datestamp>1245252420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/06/pinwale\_and\_the\_new\_nsa\_revelations.php" title="theatlantic.com">Here</a> [theatlantic.com].</p><p>Four NSA domestic surveillance programs.</p><ul><li>Terrorist Surveillance Program, which involves the monitoring of telephone calls.</li><li>"Stellar Wind," e-mail meta-data mining.</li><li>a program that keeps tabs on all the information that flows through telecom hubs under the control of U.S. companies and within the U.S.</li><li>Pinwale e-mail exploitation.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here [ theatlantic.com ] .Four NSA domestic surveillance programs.Terrorist Surveillance Program , which involves the monitoring of telephone calls .
" Stellar Wind , " e-mail meta-data mining.a program that keeps tabs on all the information that flows through telecom hubs under the control of U.S. companies and within the U.S.Pinwale e-mail exploitation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here [theatlantic.com].Four NSA domestic surveillance programs.Terrorist Surveillance Program, which involves the monitoring of telephone calls.
"Stellar Wind," e-mail meta-data mining.a program that keeps tabs on all the information that flows through telecom hubs under the control of U.S. companies and within the U.S.Pinwale e-mail exploitation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361173</id>
	<title>NSA line eater</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1245251880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time to bring back the NSA line eater?</p><p>--<br>bomb assassinate washington north korea iraq spy poison</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to bring back the NSA line eater ? --bomb assassinate washington north korea iraq spy poison</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to bring back the NSA line eater?--bomb assassinate washington north korea iraq spy poison</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362557</id>
	<title>Re:SMIME</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245258720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chances are, you don't <em>know</em> Thawte or Verisign.  You haven't met them.  What makes them a good trusted introducer for keys?  About the only thing you do know about Verisign as a trusted introducer, is that they have already decided to not be "too trusthworthy." (<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=verisign+page+calea" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">google search</a> [google.com], use the cached verisign page since they decided to remove it from their site.)
</p><p>
How can that possibly compared to the PGP WoT?  SMIME is for tools.  PGP is where you go is you're even half serious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chances are , you do n't know Thawte or Verisign .
You have n't met them .
What makes them a good trusted introducer for keys ?
About the only thing you do know about Verisign as a trusted introducer , is that they have already decided to not be " too trusthworthy .
" ( google search [ google.com ] , use the cached verisign page since they decided to remove it from their site .
) How can that possibly compared to the PGP WoT ?
SMIME is for tools .
PGP is where you go is you 're even half serious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chances are, you don't know Thawte or Verisign.
You haven't met them.
What makes them a good trusted introducer for keys?
About the only thing you do know about Verisign as a trusted introducer, is that they have already decided to not be "too trusthworthy.
" (google search [google.com], use the cached verisign page since they decided to remove it from their site.
)

How can that possibly compared to the PGP WoT?
SMIME is for tools.
PGP is where you go is you're even half serious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361271</id>
	<title>Congreeman Holt is racist...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245252300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to claim that this still goes on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to claim that this still goes on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to claim that this still goes on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28370305</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, quit whining</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245268320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who's whining? This freaking country rules. God Bless America, HaX0r P4r4d1z3! NSA, please keep reading my email. Hack my planet! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who 's whining ?
This freaking country rules .
God Bless America , HaX0r P4r4d1z3 !
NSA , please keep reading my email .
Hack my planet !
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who's whining?
This freaking country rules.
God Bless America, HaX0r P4r4d1z3!
NSA, please keep reading my email.
Hack my planet!
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28364905</id>
	<title>Re:SMIME</title>
	<author>fractalus</author>
	<datestamp>1245269700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mess up a good rant, but you do understand that when you hand off a key to a certificate authority for signing, you only give them the public portion of the key? The same portion everyone who communicates would need in order to encrypt anything?</p><p>The CA signs your public key. It's basically a third party that confirms to Alice that Bob uses a particular public key. And if you know the public key is correct, only the owner of the private portion of the key can use it for encryption.</p><p>The kind of attack that would be required, if the CIA actually had control of the CAs, would be to present a phony public key for Bob, signed by the CA. And that only works if they can control the dissemination of the certificate itself. Control of the CA doesn't allow them to snoop on all conversations with the keys presented to them.</p><p>This is not to say that PGP is a bad idea, just that certs do not work like you suggest they do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mess up a good rant , but you do understand that when you hand off a key to a certificate authority for signing , you only give them the public portion of the key ?
The same portion everyone who communicates would need in order to encrypt anything ? The CA signs your public key .
It 's basically a third party that confirms to Alice that Bob uses a particular public key .
And if you know the public key is correct , only the owner of the private portion of the key can use it for encryption.The kind of attack that would be required , if the CIA actually had control of the CAs , would be to present a phony public key for Bob , signed by the CA .
And that only works if they can control the dissemination of the certificate itself .
Control of the CA does n't allow them to snoop on all conversations with the keys presented to them.This is not to say that PGP is a bad idea , just that certs do not work like you suggest they do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mess up a good rant, but you do understand that when you hand off a key to a certificate authority for signing, you only give them the public portion of the key?
The same portion everyone who communicates would need in order to encrypt anything?The CA signs your public key.
It's basically a third party that confirms to Alice that Bob uses a particular public key.
And if you know the public key is correct, only the owner of the private portion of the key can use it for encryption.The kind of attack that would be required, if the CIA actually had control of the CAs, would be to present a phony public key for Bob, signed by the CA.
And that only works if they can control the dissemination of the certificate itself.
Control of the CA doesn't allow them to snoop on all conversations with the keys presented to them.This is not to say that PGP is a bad idea, just that certs do not work like you suggest they do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28370363</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, quit whining</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1245355320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that Obama is light-years better than any of the <em>totally insane</em> third-party candidates. Ralph Nader? Ron Paul? Chuck Baldwin? I'd rather pick a random guy out of a hat than any of those three incompetent morons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that Obama is light-years better than any of the totally insane third-party candidates .
Ralph Nader ?
Ron Paul ?
Chuck Baldwin ?
I 'd rather pick a random guy out of a hat than any of those three incompetent morons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that Obama is light-years better than any of the totally insane third-party candidates.
Ralph Nader?
Ron Paul?
Chuck Baldwin?
I'd rather pick a random guy out of a hat than any of those three incompetent morons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361285</id>
	<title>SMASH IMPERIALISM WITH WORKERS REVOLUTION!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245252300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reforge the Fourth International! Workers to power!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reforge the Fourth International !
Workers to power !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reforge the Fourth International!
Workers to power!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361901</id>
	<title>Re:Solution: PGP</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245255600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are targeting communication. Do you mean 'individuals"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are targeting communication .
Do you mean 'individuals " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are targeting communication.
Do you mean 'individuals"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362073</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>gstoddart</author>
	<datestamp>1245256440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>emails are sent in the clear. If you really cared, you'd encrypt it all. Lots more people than the government have been and will be looking at your email, it's inherent in the nature of the system.</p></div></blockquote><p>Telephone messages are sent in the clear too, but it requires a <em>warrant</em> to listen in on them.</p><blockquote><div><p>The truth is that almost nothing anyone sends via email is worthy of this furor.  Again, anything that you don't want others to see you should have encrypted or sent by other means</p></div></blockquote><p>That doesn't give the government blanket privilege to listen in on them.  That's going back to saying only those who are guilty have something to hide.</p><p>If one only encrypted the stuff one wanted secret, it would be telegraphing <em>when</em> you're sending something secret.</p><blockquote><div><p>The harm comes from noise about things that don't matter, drowning out things that do. Complaining about government intrusion into an inherently public protocol makes it harder to notice instances of true abuse of privacy.</p></div></blockquote><p>With all due respect<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... horseshit.</p><p>There are constitutional and legal issues which circumscribe what the government can and can't listen in on.  Mass reading of e-mail is one of them.</p><p>The harm is the government overstepping their legal authority to monitor the conversations of its citizenry when it knows damned well it can get away with it.  By saying "well, gee, why should we care", you're just quietly accepting it.</p><p>And what, do tell, happens when they expand this program to go slightly beyond purely "national security" issues?  How about, tracking your political affiliations?  Monitoring if you're having an affair?  Secretly gay?</p><p>Allowing widespread government intrusion with no rules is just asinine -- especially in a country which still thinks of itself as the "land of the free".</p><p>Cheers</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>emails are sent in the clear .
If you really cared , you 'd encrypt it all .
Lots more people than the government have been and will be looking at your email , it 's inherent in the nature of the system.Telephone messages are sent in the clear too , but it requires a warrant to listen in on them.The truth is that almost nothing anyone sends via email is worthy of this furor .
Again , anything that you do n't want others to see you should have encrypted or sent by other meansThat does n't give the government blanket privilege to listen in on them .
That 's going back to saying only those who are guilty have something to hide.If one only encrypted the stuff one wanted secret , it would be telegraphing when you 're sending something secret.The harm comes from noise about things that do n't matter , drowning out things that do .
Complaining about government intrusion into an inherently public protocol makes it harder to notice instances of true abuse of privacy.With all due respect .... horseshit.There are constitutional and legal issues which circumscribe what the government can and ca n't listen in on .
Mass reading of e-mail is one of them.The harm is the government overstepping their legal authority to monitor the conversations of its citizenry when it knows damned well it can get away with it .
By saying " well , gee , why should we care " , you 're just quietly accepting it.And what , do tell , happens when they expand this program to go slightly beyond purely " national security " issues ?
How about , tracking your political affiliations ?
Monitoring if you 're having an affair ?
Secretly gay ? Allowing widespread government intrusion with no rules is just asinine -- especially in a country which still thinks of itself as the " land of the free " .Cheers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>emails are sent in the clear.
If you really cared, you'd encrypt it all.
Lots more people than the government have been and will be looking at your email, it's inherent in the nature of the system.Telephone messages are sent in the clear too, but it requires a warrant to listen in on them.The truth is that almost nothing anyone sends via email is worthy of this furor.
Again, anything that you don't want others to see you should have encrypted or sent by other meansThat doesn't give the government blanket privilege to listen in on them.
That's going back to saying only those who are guilty have something to hide.If one only encrypted the stuff one wanted secret, it would be telegraphing when you're sending something secret.The harm comes from noise about things that don't matter, drowning out things that do.
Complaining about government intrusion into an inherently public protocol makes it harder to notice instances of true abuse of privacy.With all due respect .... horseshit.There are constitutional and legal issues which circumscribe what the government can and can't listen in on.
Mass reading of e-mail is one of them.The harm is the government overstepping their legal authority to monitor the conversations of its citizenry when it knows damned well it can get away with it.
By saying "well, gee, why should we care", you're just quietly accepting it.And what, do tell, happens when they expand this program to go slightly beyond purely "national security" issues?
How about, tracking your political affiliations?
Monitoring if you're having an affair?
Secretly gay?Allowing widespread government intrusion with no rules is just asinine -- especially in a country which still thinks of itself as the "land of the free".Cheers
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363133</id>
	<title>Re:Which of our former classmates and colleagues .</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1245261540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because programmer A who cares writes the data collection and mining code, and is told it's used to keep a lid on the bad guys.  It is, but then Manager B says, let's start collecting internal to external stuff.  Programmer C says, "Ok".  Then Someone D says, "But we need to watch just these two internal bad guys, "Think of the Children!!".  Then, the head of the NSA just says, "Might as well watch everything now."
<br> <br>
"Any tool's usefulness as a tool, is proportional to it's usefulness as a weapon"
<br>
  -  Niven's Law
<br> <br>
Should we stop developing Linux because it might be running the NSA's computers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because programmer A who cares writes the data collection and mining code , and is told it 's used to keep a lid on the bad guys .
It is , but then Manager B says , let 's start collecting internal to external stuff .
Programmer C says , " Ok " .
Then Someone D says , " But we need to watch just these two internal bad guys , " Think of the Children ! ! " .
Then , the head of the NSA just says , " Might as well watch everything now .
" " Any tool 's usefulness as a tool , is proportional to it 's usefulness as a weapon " - Niven 's Law Should we stop developing Linux because it might be running the NSA 's computers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because programmer A who cares writes the data collection and mining code, and is told it's used to keep a lid on the bad guys.
It is, but then Manager B says, let's start collecting internal to external stuff.
Programmer C says, "Ok".
Then Someone D says, "But we need to watch just these two internal bad guys, "Think of the Children!!".
Then, the head of the NSA just says, "Might as well watch everything now.
"
 
"Any tool's usefulness as a tool, is proportional to it's usefulness as a weapon"

  -  Niven's Law
 
Should we stop developing Linux because it might be running the NSA's computers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362777</id>
	<title>I for one, welcome our NSA overlords.</title>
	<author>macbeth66</author>
	<datestamp>1245259800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wait a minute...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wait a minute.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wait a minute...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28365667</id>
	<title>to paraphrase George Carlin</title>
	<author>OutOnARock</author>
	<datestamp>1245230160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
<br>
Guy knew his emails were being read by the NSA.
<br>
<br>
So every email he sent, started with the text:
<br>
<br>
FUCK THE NSA!
<br>
Hi, I'd like to inquire about the.....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guy knew his emails were being read by the NSA .
So every email he sent , started with the text : FUCK THE NSA !
Hi , I 'd like to inquire about the.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Guy knew his emails were being read by the NSA.
So every email he sent, started with the text:


FUCK THE NSA!
Hi, I'd like to inquire about the.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362645</id>
	<title>Why is internet traffic treated differently?</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1245259200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the fist provision of anti-government snooping was aimed at traditional mail services.  As other means of communication came into being, similar law and prohibitions were put into place, you know like no wire-tapping without a warrant?  How can email be treated any differently?  (Some would say it's not... it's that communications of all sorts are under attack and I would have to agree with that point)</p><p>We need to restore the sanity of a government with limits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the fist provision of anti-government snooping was aimed at traditional mail services .
As other means of communication came into being , similar law and prohibitions were put into place , you know like no wire-tapping without a warrant ?
How can email be treated any differently ?
( Some would say it 's not... it 's that communications of all sorts are under attack and I would have to agree with that point ) We need to restore the sanity of a government with limits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the fist provision of anti-government snooping was aimed at traditional mail services.
As other means of communication came into being, similar law and prohibitions were put into place, you know like no wire-tapping without a warrant?
How can email be treated any differently?
(Some would say it's not... it's that communications of all sorts are under attack and I would have to agree with that point)We need to restore the sanity of a government with limits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361659</id>
	<title>Re:My Dearest NSA,</title>
	<author>xonial</author>
	<datestamp>1245254400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you fear freedom so much, why don't you move to Iran?</p></div><p>Not to be too nit-picky, but recent (and ongoing) events have shown that the Iranians love/want freedom just as much (if not more; they're fighting for theirs) as we Americans do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you fear freedom so much , why do n't you move to Iran ? Not to be too nit-picky , but recent ( and ongoing ) events have shown that the Iranians love/want freedom just as much ( if not more ; they 're fighting for theirs ) as we Americans do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you fear freedom so much, why don't you move to Iran?Not to be too nit-picky, but recent (and ongoing) events have shown that the Iranians love/want freedom just as much (if not more; they're fighting for theirs) as we Americans do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28366293</id>
	<title>Special Slashdot Memo:   +1, Helpful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245233160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I stated this a couple of years ago: ALL electronic communication is intercepted.</p><p>Over and out.</p><p>Seditiously As Always,<br><a href="http://current.cf.huffingpost.com/" title="huffingpost.com" rel="nofollow">Kilgore Trout</a> [huffingpost.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I stated this a couple of years ago : ALL electronic communication is intercepted.Over and out.Seditiously As Always,Kilgore Trout [ huffingpost.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stated this a couple of years ago: ALL electronic communication is intercepted.Over and out.Seditiously As Always,Kilgore Trout [huffingpost.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28364149</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Waffle Iron</author>
	<datestamp>1245266040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So why should you not be upset about this? What is the harm?</p></div><p>If the government can't be bothered to obey its laws, then why should I (or anyone else) obey them?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So why should you not be upset about this ?
What is the harm ? If the government ca n't be bothered to obey its laws , then why should I ( or anyone else ) obey them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So why should you not be upset about this?
What is the harm?If the government can't be bothered to obey its laws, then why should I (or anyone else) obey them?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362289</id>
	<title>Re:My Dearest NSA,</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1245257520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>*clap clap clap* Very moving...really...*cough*  Anyways, I am sure the NSA isn't as you describe them.  They shouldn't be breaking the laws...but I am sure they just see themselves as trying to protect American lives.  They aren't scared/cowards/bed wetters...they are people just like you and me.  They are misguided, sure, but calling them a bunch of names and telling them to move out of the country is a bit stupid.<br> <br>Oh, and Iranians want freedom too...way to fail paying attention to current events.</htmltext>
<tokenext>* clap clap clap * Very moving...really... * cough * Anyways , I am sure the NSA is n't as you describe them .
They should n't be breaking the laws...but I am sure they just see themselves as trying to protect American lives .
They are n't scared/cowards/bed wetters...they are people just like you and me .
They are misguided , sure , but calling them a bunch of names and telling them to move out of the country is a bit stupid .
Oh , and Iranians want freedom too...way to fail paying attention to current events .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*clap clap clap* Very moving...really...*cough*  Anyways, I am sure the NSA isn't as you describe them.
They shouldn't be breaking the laws...but I am sure they just see themselves as trying to protect American lives.
They aren't scared/cowards/bed wetters...they are people just like you and me.
They are misguided, sure, but calling them a bunch of names and telling them to move out of the country is a bit stupid.
Oh, and Iranians want freedom too...way to fail paying attention to current events.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362617</id>
	<title>Re:My Dearest NSA,</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1245259020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's rather cliche in Obama's America, but <a href="http://www.blackfive.net/main/2004/10/i\_only\_hang\_wit.html" title="blackfive.net">here's an essay</a> [blackfive.net] which attempts to answer that.<p>Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, which is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world.</p><p>

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
</p><p>
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."</p><p>Then there are the sheep that not only refuse to accept a certain inevitability of violence but go so far as to blame the existence of the wolf upon the sheepdog.  In their minds and in their desperation to extend a sort of courtesy to the wolves, they believe that the wolves were actually sheep just like them BUT, were somehow forced to become wolves because of the sheepdog.</p><p>Anyway, enough obsolete 20th century American agricultural metaphors.  I'm sure if someone rewrote this to say player-killers and roleplayers, it would be on the front page of boingboing (and slashdot) tomorrow morning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's rather cliche in Obama 's America , but here 's an essay [ blackfive.net ] which attempts to answer that.Let me expand on this old soldier 's excellent model of the sheep , wolves , and sheepdogs .
We know that the sheep live in denial , which is what makes them sheep .
They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world .
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog .
He looks a lot like the wolf .
He has fangs and the capacity for violence .
The difference , though , is that the sheepdog must not , can not and will not ever harm the sheep .
Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed .
The world can not work any other way , at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours .
Still , the sheepdog disturbs the sheep .
He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land .
They would prefer that he did n't tell them where to go , or give them traffic tickets , or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16 .
The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs , spray paint himself white , and go , " Baa .
" Then there are the sheep that not only refuse to accept a certain inevitability of violence but go so far as to blame the existence of the wolf upon the sheepdog .
In their minds and in their desperation to extend a sort of courtesy to the wolves , they believe that the wolves were actually sheep just like them BUT , were somehow forced to become wolves because of the sheepdog.Anyway , enough obsolete 20th century American agricultural metaphors .
I 'm sure if someone rewrote this to say player-killers and roleplayers , it would be on the front page of boingboing ( and slashdot ) tomorrow morning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's rather cliche in Obama's America, but here's an essay [blackfive.net] which attempts to answer that.Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs.
We know that the sheep live in denial, which is what makes them sheep.
They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world.
The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog.
He looks a lot like the wolf.
He has fangs and the capacity for violence.
The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep.
Any sheepdog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed.
The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep.
He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land.
They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16.
The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa.
"Then there are the sheep that not only refuse to accept a certain inevitability of violence but go so far as to blame the existence of the wolf upon the sheepdog.
In their minds and in their desperation to extend a sort of courtesy to the wolves, they believe that the wolves were actually sheep just like them BUT, were somehow forced to become wolves because of the sheepdog.Anyway, enough obsolete 20th century American agricultural metaphors.
I'm sure if someone rewrote this to say player-killers and roleplayers, it would be on the front page of boingboing (and slashdot) tomorrow morning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361375</id>
	<title>Government investigating Government?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245252960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, whenever the Government is investigating the Government nothing will happen.</p><p>Oh wait, someone is knocking at the door...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , whenever the Government is investigating the Government nothing will happen.Oh wait , someone is knocking at the door.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, whenever the Government is investigating the Government nothing will happen.Oh wait, someone is knocking at the door...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28367497</id>
	<title>PGP doesn't hide who-communicates-with-who</title>
	<author>schwaang</author>
	<datestamp>1245239700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Short version:<br>Even if PGP was foolproof, easy, and everywhere, this doesn't solve the issue of meta-data mining.  If you're government is determined to invade your privacy, and you're not determined to stand up for your rights, no technical solution will save you for long.</p><p>Longer version:<br>From TFA and other articles, the US government is apparently tracking who-calls-who and who-emails-who.  (And probably also who-goes-where-when using cell-phone location tracking.)  Also it's apparent that they dragnet everyone's communications, and minimizing this tracking to only suspected terrorists and non-US persons is at best a fig leaf of privacy for the innocent.</p><p>PGP doesn't hide *who* you communicate with, or *when* (the un-encrypted meta-data as opposed to the encrypted contents).  And you might think that using cash pre-paid cellphones and throw-away email accounts would give you anonymity, but analysis of who-contacts-who would break that anonymity in short order for most people.</p><p>[You can bet calls/emails to UBL's grandma are scrutinized, even if they come PGP'd from anon-e-mouse@hotmail.com.  Knowing who else anon-e-mouse talks to, and what IP address his email came from might be helpful unless he's really really careful. Consider lessons from the AOL's "anonymous" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL\_search\_data" title="wikipedia.org">search data fiasco</a> [wikipedia.org].]</p><p>This kind of dossier on every citizen used to be considered the very example of un-American government, all too easily used to enable tyranny.  Technology and a newly fearful but long complacent public has made these implementing these communications dragnets dangerously easy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Short version : Even if PGP was foolproof , easy , and everywhere , this does n't solve the issue of meta-data mining .
If you 're government is determined to invade your privacy , and you 're not determined to stand up for your rights , no technical solution will save you for long.Longer version : From TFA and other articles , the US government is apparently tracking who-calls-who and who-emails-who .
( And probably also who-goes-where-when using cell-phone location tracking .
) Also it 's apparent that they dragnet everyone 's communications , and minimizing this tracking to only suspected terrorists and non-US persons is at best a fig leaf of privacy for the innocent.PGP does n't hide * who * you communicate with , or * when * ( the un-encrypted meta-data as opposed to the encrypted contents ) .
And you might think that using cash pre-paid cellphones and throw-away email accounts would give you anonymity , but analysis of who-contacts-who would break that anonymity in short order for most people .
[ You can bet calls/emails to UBL 's grandma are scrutinized , even if they come PGP 'd from anon-e-mouse @ hotmail.com .
Knowing who else anon-e-mouse talks to , and what IP address his email came from might be helpful unless he 's really really careful .
Consider lessons from the AOL 's " anonymous " search data fiasco [ wikipedia.org ] .
] This kind of dossier on every citizen used to be considered the very example of un-American government , all too easily used to enable tyranny .
Technology and a newly fearful but long complacent public has made these implementing these communications dragnets dangerously easy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Short version:Even if PGP was foolproof, easy, and everywhere, this doesn't solve the issue of meta-data mining.
If you're government is determined to invade your privacy, and you're not determined to stand up for your rights, no technical solution will save you for long.Longer version:From TFA and other articles, the US government is apparently tracking who-calls-who and who-emails-who.
(And probably also who-goes-where-when using cell-phone location tracking.
)  Also it's apparent that they dragnet everyone's communications, and minimizing this tracking to only suspected terrorists and non-US persons is at best a fig leaf of privacy for the innocent.PGP doesn't hide *who* you communicate with, or *when* (the un-encrypted meta-data as opposed to the encrypted contents).
And you might think that using cash pre-paid cellphones and throw-away email accounts would give you anonymity, but analysis of who-contacts-who would break that anonymity in short order for most people.
[You can bet calls/emails to UBL's grandma are scrutinized, even if they come PGP'd from anon-e-mouse@hotmail.com.
Knowing who else anon-e-mouse talks to, and what IP address his email came from might be helpful unless he's really really careful.
Consider lessons from the AOL's "anonymous" search data fiasco [wikipedia.org].
]This kind of dossier on every citizen used to be considered the very example of un-American government, all too easily used to enable tyranny.
Technology and a newly fearful but long complacent public has made these implementing these communications dragnets dangerously easy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361861</id>
	<title>Re:My Dearest NSA,</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1245255360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you fear freedom so much, why don't you move to Iran?</p><blockquote><div><p>This country is for people who love freedom.</p></div></blockquote></div> </blockquote><p>No, the USA used to be a place of freedom, back when persecuted Quakers etc. were fleeing there from Europe.  Over the years, it's become less and less interested in freedom, and more and more one of the places that no longer understand freedom.</p><p>Similarly, Linux used to be a place of FREEdom, back when a few geeks used it as an alternative to Windows.  Now, as it becomes more and more mainstream, less people get the FREE software part, and more think it's just another alternative way to run software.</p><p>Essentially, it's a tragedy of the commons... whenever things become mainstream, they lose the qualities that made them non-mainstream.  The only solution is to then step outside of that stream (i.e., out of normal USA society) by moving elsewhere, or getting "off the grid" somehow.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you fear freedom so much , why do n't you move to Iran ? This country is for people who love freedom .
No , the USA used to be a place of freedom , back when persecuted Quakers etc .
were fleeing there from Europe .
Over the years , it 's become less and less interested in freedom , and more and more one of the places that no longer understand freedom.Similarly , Linux used to be a place of FREEdom , back when a few geeks used it as an alternative to Windows .
Now , as it becomes more and more mainstream , less people get the FREE software part , and more think it 's just another alternative way to run software.Essentially , it 's a tragedy of the commons... whenever things become mainstream , they lose the qualities that made them non-mainstream .
The only solution is to then step outside of that stream ( i.e. , out of normal USA society ) by moving elsewhere , or getting " off the grid " somehow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you fear freedom so much, why don't you move to Iran?This country is for people who love freedom.
No, the USA used to be a place of freedom, back when persecuted Quakers etc.
were fleeing there from Europe.
Over the years, it's become less and less interested in freedom, and more and more one of the places that no longer understand freedom.Similarly, Linux used to be a place of FREEdom, back when a few geeks used it as an alternative to Windows.
Now, as it becomes more and more mainstream, less people get the FREE software part, and more think it's just another alternative way to run software.Essentially, it's a tragedy of the commons... whenever things become mainstream, they lose the qualities that made them non-mainstream.
The only solution is to then step outside of that stream (i.e., out of normal USA society) by moving elsewhere, or getting "off the grid" somehow.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361429</id>
	<title>how to respond in new code</title>
	<author>observer7</author>
	<datestamp>1245253260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With the passing of someone you know
Caring house calls once cushioned the blow;
Now Gen Y just expects
Breaking news via text:
"omg wtf...g2g!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the passing of someone you know Caring house calls once cushioned the blow ; Now Gen Y just expects Breaking news via text : " omg wtf...g2g !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the passing of someone you know
Caring house calls once cushioned the blow;
Now Gen Y just expects
Breaking news via text:
"omg wtf...g2g!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361293</id>
	<title>Our last best hope?</title>
	<author>auric\_dude</author>
	<datestamp>1245252420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Choose from NSA <a href="http://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying" title="eff.org">http://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying</a> [eff.org], privacy <a href="http://www.eff.org/issues/privacy" title="eff.org">http://www.eff.org/issues/privacy</a> [eff.org] and a whole load of other stuff <a href="http://www.eff.org/about" title="eff.org">http://www.eff.org/about</a> [eff.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Choose from NSA http : //www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying [ eff.org ] , privacy http : //www.eff.org/issues/privacy [ eff.org ] and a whole load of other stuff http : //www.eff.org/about [ eff.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Choose from NSA http://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying [eff.org], privacy http://www.eff.org/issues/privacy [eff.org] and a whole load of other stuff http://www.eff.org/about [eff.org].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361225</id>
	<title>Oh, quit whining</title>
	<author>rbrander</author>
	<datestamp>1245252120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You got the government you deserve, just like your founders promised.  The Executive won't stop this, you know that now - the most "transformational" figure you could have possibly elected got in, and he's down with all of the new executive powers.   The Congress won't stop this, because you NEGLECTED TO FIRE MOST OF THEM for ignoring such things for years.</p><p>Start firing congressmen and senators in significant numbers, and things will change.   Otherwise, quit the damn whining.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You got the government you deserve , just like your founders promised .
The Executive wo n't stop this , you know that now - the most " transformational " figure you could have possibly elected got in , and he 's down with all of the new executive powers .
The Congress wo n't stop this , because you NEGLECTED TO FIRE MOST OF THEM for ignoring such things for years.Start firing congressmen and senators in significant numbers , and things will change .
Otherwise , quit the damn whining .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You got the government you deserve, just like your founders promised.
The Executive won't stop this, you know that now - the most "transformational" figure you could have possibly elected got in, and he's down with all of the new executive powers.
The Congress won't stop this, because you NEGLECTED TO FIRE MOST OF THEM for ignoring such things for years.Start firing congressmen and senators in significant numbers, and things will change.
Otherwise, quit the damn whining.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361687</id>
	<title>Why doesn't every email client have PGP built-in?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245254520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do not understand why major OS vendors don't make an effort to seamlessly integrate PGP into their email clients.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not understand why major OS vendors do n't make an effort to seamlessly integrate PGP into their email clients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not understand why major OS vendors don't make an effort to seamlessly integrate PGP into their email clients.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363899</id>
	<title>In Soviet Russia...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245264840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>damn!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>damn !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>damn!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361767</id>
	<title>Re:SMIME</title>
	<author>just fiddling around</author>
	<datestamp>1245254880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, let's say I'm down with this.<p>
Now, tell me how I can get my hands on the private keys for these certificates WITHOUT the NSA getting them in transit?
</p><p>
Try the approach Cory Doctorow demonstrated in Little Brother X:  do a keygen-countersigning party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , let 's say I 'm down with this .
Now , tell me how I can get my hands on the private keys for these certificates WITHOUT the NSA getting them in transit ?
Try the approach Cory Doctorow demonstrated in Little Brother X : do a keygen-countersigning party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, let's say I'm down with this.
Now, tell me how I can get my hands on the private keys for these certificates WITHOUT the NSA getting them in transit?
Try the approach Cory Doctorow demonstrated in Little Brother X:  do a keygen-countersigning party.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361835</id>
	<title>new email sig</title>
	<author>spidercoz</author>
	<datestamp>1245255240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>dirty suitcase nuke anthrax bomb jihad the great satan yellowcake plutonium ricin nerve gas flesh eating plague bring on the virgins fuck you NSA</htmltext>
<tokenext>dirty suitcase nuke anthrax bomb jihad the great satan yellowcake plutonium ricin nerve gas flesh eating plague bring on the virgins fuck you NSA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dirty suitcase nuke anthrax bomb jihad the great satan yellowcake plutonium ricin nerve gas flesh eating plague bring on the virgins fuck you NSA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362287</id>
	<title>Open source email encryption gateway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245257520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This open source email encryption gateway can issue S/MIME certificates for free for internal and external recipients.</p><p><a href="http://www.djigzo.com/" title="djigzo.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.djigzo.com/</a> [djigzo.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This open source email encryption gateway can issue S/MIME certificates for free for internal and external recipients.http : //www.djigzo.com/ [ djigzo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This open source email encryption gateway can issue S/MIME certificates for free for internal and external recipients.http://www.djigzo.com/ [djigzo.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361849</id>
	<title>I they want to read...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245255300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...my furry yiffing, I say let them!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...my furry yiffing , I say let them !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...my furry yiffing, I say let them!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361523</id>
	<title>Random Junk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245253680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ol>
<li>Set up multiple throw-away email addresses.</li><li>Set up a bot to cat some<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/urandom into messages, make it look like encrypted messages (extra points for using Tor to hide your IP).</li><li>Send "encrypted" messages back and forth between the throw-away addresses.</li><li>Let the NSA grind some resources trying to decode the "encrypted" messages.</li><li>????</li><li>Profit!</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>Set up multiple throw-away email addresses.Set up a bot to cat some /dev/urandom into messages , make it look like encrypted messages ( extra points for using Tor to hide your IP ) .Send " encrypted " messages back and forth between the throw-away addresses.Let the NSA grind some resources trying to decode the " encrypted " messages. ? ? ?
? Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Set up multiple throw-away email addresses.Set up a bot to cat some /dev/urandom into messages, make it look like encrypted messages (extra points for using Tor to hide your IP).Send "encrypted" messages back and forth between the throw-away addresses.Let the NSA grind some resources trying to decode the "encrypted" messages.???
?Profit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28366143</id>
	<title>Where are the intelligence people?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245232620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/15/1334203" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">This</a> [slashdot.org] story seems to have attracted lots of people on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. that work in the intelligence community, whereas this current article about domestic surveillance attracts none. I find that interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This [ slashdot.org ] story seems to have attracted lots of people on / .
that work in the intelligence community , whereas this current article about domestic surveillance attracts none .
I find that interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This [slashdot.org] story seems to have attracted lots of people on /.
that work in the intelligence community, whereas this current article about domestic surveillance attracts none.
I find that interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362141</id>
	<title>Re:SMIME</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1245256860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like a great idea from someone divorced from reality.  This might work for people with 3 tech friends.  The rest of us have normal friends that don't care about this sort of thing so we would prefer that the government would obey the laws instead of making us jump through hoops.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a great idea from someone divorced from reality .
This might work for people with 3 tech friends .
The rest of us have normal friends that do n't care about this sort of thing so we would prefer that the government would obey the laws instead of making us jump through hoops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a great idea from someone divorced from reality.
This might work for people with 3 tech friends.
The rest of us have normal friends that don't care about this sort of thing so we would prefer that the government would obey the laws instead of making us jump through hoops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28364049</id>
	<title>I'm a spy!</title>
	<author>bryan1945</author>
	<datestamp>1245265500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, come get me NSA!</p><p>I would love to see the breakdown on costs for checking all these emails.  How much did my email yesterday to my wife about my homework grade cost?  I remember back when the whole tapping cell phone calls came out, when I called my mom I would randomly insert words like "terorist" "bombs" "nuclear plans" and other nonsense.  I'm so dull the most dangerous thing I do is burn dinner, unless watching "Evil Dead 2" drives me insane and I become a terrorist with nuclear bomb plans!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , come get me NSA ! I would love to see the breakdown on costs for checking all these emails .
How much did my email yesterday to my wife about my homework grade cost ?
I remember back when the whole tapping cell phone calls came out , when I called my mom I would randomly insert words like " terorist " " bombs " " nuclear plans " and other nonsense .
I 'm so dull the most dangerous thing I do is burn dinner , unless watching " Evil Dead 2 " drives me insane and I become a terrorist with nuclear bomb plans !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, come get me NSA!I would love to see the breakdown on costs for checking all these emails.
How much did my email yesterday to my wife about my homework grade cost?
I remember back when the whole tapping cell phone calls came out, when I called my mom I would randomly insert words like "terorist" "bombs" "nuclear plans" and other nonsense.
I'm so dull the most dangerous thing I do is burn dinner, unless watching "Evil Dead 2" drives me insane and I become a terrorist with nuclear bomb plans!
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28365817</id>
	<title>tree of liberty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245230820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mr. Holt added that few lawmakers could challenge the agency's statements because so few understood the technical complexities of its surveillance operations. "The people making the policy," he said, "don't understand the technicalities."

Jesus H. Fucking Christ - Not only are you boobs so incompetent that you don't read legislation you vote for, but now you can't even hire aides to tell you what the fuck this all means???!!!???? Tree of liberty, blood of tyrants, and all that jazz indeed!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mr. Holt added that few lawmakers could challenge the agency 's statements because so few understood the technical complexities of its surveillance operations .
" The people making the policy , " he said , " do n't understand the technicalities .
" Jesus H. Fucking Christ - Not only are you boobs so incompetent that you do n't read legislation you vote for , but now you ca n't even hire aides to tell you what the fuck this all means ? ? ? ! ! ! ? ? ? ?
Tree of liberty , blood of tyrants , and all that jazz indeed !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mr. Holt added that few lawmakers could challenge the agency's statements because so few understood the technical complexities of its surveillance operations.
"The people making the policy," he said, "don't understand the technicalities.
"

Jesus H. Fucking Christ - Not only are you boobs so incompetent that you don't read legislation you vote for, but now you can't even hire aides to tell you what the fuck this all means???!!!????
Tree of liberty, blood of tyrants, and all that jazz indeed!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361381</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, quit whining</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1245252960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This situation isn't anything new. The US government has had a program like this since the mid 90's and if you remember right, they abandoned their own software for doing so in favor of commercial software (produced by the hack club cult of the dead cow I think). It was project magic lantern or echelon or something of the sorts.</p><p>I'm not sure if this "recent" awareness of the program brings about anything new or any new applications but I believe that it was already settled in the courts where a judge said that because a computer and not a human was monitoring, it wasn't in conflict with the constitution.</p><p>Anyways, the people won't fire the people in congress. There are two reasons, one is in how the dems successfully played the role of the helpless idiots who didn't have enough power to do anything even though they had larger majorities then the republicans did in the last 8 years. The second is that they blamed everything on the republicans because they had a majority (even though they didn't in both houses buy one year of bush's term). So in short, you have the people who are basically too ignorant, lazy, or somehow otherwise preoccupied and couldn't check something as simple as the strength of either party in either house so they just believed what was said and voted for them anyways.</p><p>You also have the problem of not having anyone better to replace them with. A non of the above vote still allows them to be elected, if not just for the candidate and their family voting for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This situation is n't anything new .
The US government has had a program like this since the mid 90 's and if you remember right , they abandoned their own software for doing so in favor of commercial software ( produced by the hack club cult of the dead cow I think ) .
It was project magic lantern or echelon or something of the sorts.I 'm not sure if this " recent " awareness of the program brings about anything new or any new applications but I believe that it was already settled in the courts where a judge said that because a computer and not a human was monitoring , it was n't in conflict with the constitution.Anyways , the people wo n't fire the people in congress .
There are two reasons , one is in how the dems successfully played the role of the helpless idiots who did n't have enough power to do anything even though they had larger majorities then the republicans did in the last 8 years .
The second is that they blamed everything on the republicans because they had a majority ( even though they did n't in both houses buy one year of bush 's term ) .
So in short , you have the people who are basically too ignorant , lazy , or somehow otherwise preoccupied and could n't check something as simple as the strength of either party in either house so they just believed what was said and voted for them anyways.You also have the problem of not having anyone better to replace them with .
A non of the above vote still allows them to be elected , if not just for the candidate and their family voting for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This situation isn't anything new.
The US government has had a program like this since the mid 90's and if you remember right, they abandoned their own software for doing so in favor of commercial software (produced by the hack club cult of the dead cow I think).
It was project magic lantern or echelon or something of the sorts.I'm not sure if this "recent" awareness of the program brings about anything new or any new applications but I believe that it was already settled in the courts where a judge said that because a computer and not a human was monitoring, it wasn't in conflict with the constitution.Anyways, the people won't fire the people in congress.
There are two reasons, one is in how the dems successfully played the role of the helpless idiots who didn't have enough power to do anything even though they had larger majorities then the republicans did in the last 8 years.
The second is that they blamed everything on the republicans because they had a majority (even though they didn't in both houses buy one year of bush's term).
So in short, you have the people who are basically too ignorant, lazy, or somehow otherwise preoccupied and couldn't check something as simple as the strength of either party in either house so they just believed what was said and voted for them anyways.You also have the problem of not having anyone better to replace them with.
A non of the above vote still allows them to be elected, if not just for the candidate and their family voting for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361485</id>
	<title>Re:SMIME</title>
	<author>clang\_jangle</author>
	<datestamp>1245253500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Surely that'll just get you extra special attention.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely that 'll just get you extra special attention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely that'll just get you extra special attention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28367163</id>
	<title>Re:Which of our former classmates and colleagues .</title>
	<author>clambake</author>
	<datestamp>1245237480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Thirty-something years ago I never would have imagined my peers working to undermine our freedoms by writing such code. I just don't get it.</i></p><p>Hi there!  Allow me to introduce you to the concept of money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thirty-something years ago I never would have imagined my peers working to undermine our freedoms by writing such code .
I just do n't get it.Hi there !
Allow me to introduce you to the concept of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thirty-something years ago I never would have imagined my peers working to undermine our freedoms by writing such code.
I just don't get it.Hi there!
Allow me to introduce you to the concept of money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361565</id>
	<title>Not All Bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245253980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've actually done a pretty good job of firing the bad congressmen. There's still work to be done, but a lot of the corrupt folks who were elected in the years following 9/11 are out.</p><p>The President is apparently not <em>completely</em> "down with" executive powers, since he has voluntarily given up a lot of power already. That's quite an accomplishment; don't understate it. Some people would rather see him force enormous changes immediately, but isn't that the sort of thinking that got us into trouble in the first place? Maybe a calm, thoughtful process is for the best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've actually done a pretty good job of firing the bad congressmen .
There 's still work to be done , but a lot of the corrupt folks who were elected in the years following 9/11 are out.The President is apparently not completely " down with " executive powers , since he has voluntarily given up a lot of power already .
That 's quite an accomplishment ; do n't understate it .
Some people would rather see him force enormous changes immediately , but is n't that the sort of thinking that got us into trouble in the first place ?
Maybe a calm , thoughtful process is for the best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've actually done a pretty good job of firing the bad congressmen.
There's still work to be done, but a lot of the corrupt folks who were elected in the years following 9/11 are out.The President is apparently not completely "down with" executive powers, since he has voluntarily given up a lot of power already.
That's quite an accomplishment; don't understate it.
Some people would rather see him force enormous changes immediately, but isn't that the sort of thinking that got us into trouble in the first place?
Maybe a calm, thoughtful process is for the best.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362543</id>
	<title>Think Again</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1245258660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<i>Uhhh.. Most of the illegal stuff was setup by Bush appointed neo-cons who were in government before Nixon got caught being a crook.</i>"</p><p>If you think electronic surveillance of the population is the result of "Bush's Neo-Cons", or even a <i>recent</i> phenomena, you really need to pick up some history books. Electronic surveillance has been around since there have been <i>electronics</i>. The government has <i>always</i> the ability to listen in on phone conversations, and was given broad authority and easy access to do so fairly early, by our own court system.</p><p>And Nixon? He was an amateur compared to some of his predecessors. When FDR ordered J. Edgar Hoover to tap the phones of a cabinet member he suspected was leaking to the press, Hoover refused. When FDR said "But I'm ordering you to!", Hoover replied "No sir, I won't do it. I'll tap the <i>other</i> fellow's phone". FDR simply laughed and said "Mr. Hoover, I'll never tell you your business again".</p><p>Government surveillance of electronic communications didn't start in the last eight years... it started as soon as electronic communication did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Uhhh.. Most of the illegal stuff was setup by Bush appointed neo-cons who were in government before Nixon got caught being a crook .
" If you think electronic surveillance of the population is the result of " Bush 's Neo-Cons " , or even a recent phenomena , you really need to pick up some history books .
Electronic surveillance has been around since there have been electronics .
The government has always the ability to listen in on phone conversations , and was given broad authority and easy access to do so fairly early , by our own court system.And Nixon ?
He was an amateur compared to some of his predecessors .
When FDR ordered J. Edgar Hoover to tap the phones of a cabinet member he suspected was leaking to the press , Hoover refused .
When FDR said " But I 'm ordering you to !
" , Hoover replied " No sir , I wo n't do it .
I 'll tap the other fellow 's phone " .
FDR simply laughed and said " Mr. Hoover , I 'll never tell you your business again " .Government surveillance of electronic communications did n't start in the last eight years... it started as soon as electronic communication did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Uhhh.. Most of the illegal stuff was setup by Bush appointed neo-cons who were in government before Nixon got caught being a crook.
"If you think electronic surveillance of the population is the result of "Bush's Neo-Cons", or even a recent phenomena, you really need to pick up some history books.
Electronic surveillance has been around since there have been electronics.
The government has always the ability to listen in on phone conversations, and was given broad authority and easy access to do so fairly early, by our own court system.And Nixon?
He was an amateur compared to some of his predecessors.
When FDR ordered J. Edgar Hoover to tap the phones of a cabinet member he suspected was leaking to the press, Hoover refused.
When FDR said "But I'm ordering you to!
", Hoover replied "No sir, I won't do it.
I'll tap the other fellow's phone".
FDR simply laughed and said "Mr. Hoover, I'll never tell you your business again".Government surveillance of electronic communications didn't start in the last eight years... it started as soon as electronic communication did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361943</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245255720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We shouldn't ahve to encrypt our emails to keep the government out.<br>In a nation of laws there needs to be laws and regulation about only allowing the government to read our correspondence in very specific and defined manners. When they aren't followed, the people not following the laws nede to be dealt with in an appropriate manner.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should n't ahve to encrypt our emails to keep the government out.In a nation of laws there needs to be laws and regulation about only allowing the government to read our correspondence in very specific and defined manners .
When they are n't followed , the people not following the laws nede to be dealt with in an appropriate manner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We shouldn't ahve to encrypt our emails to keep the government out.In a nation of laws there needs to be laws and regulation about only allowing the government to read our correspondence in very specific and defined manners.
When they aren't followed, the people not following the laws nede to be dealt with in an appropriate manner.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28368195</id>
	<title>Re:Email was never secure to begin with...</title>
	<author>fph il quozientatore</author>
	<datestamp>1245245220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And that makes me think: why isn't "encrypted" the standard for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/all/ network protocols, unless explicitly requested by the servers? For most uses, the processor isn't the bottleneck anyway, and those who run heavy-duty servers that need to run unencrypted for performance reasons probably already know how to turn it off. (and, even for those, hardware encryption chips would be extremely cheap if mass-produced).<br>
Given the current processor speeds, 99\% of the network traffic should be encrypted and digitally signed. At least, all human-produced content (like e-mail, or this comment) should.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And that makes me think : why is n't " encrypted " the standard for /all/ network protocols , unless explicitly requested by the servers ?
For most uses , the processor is n't the bottleneck anyway , and those who run heavy-duty servers that need to run unencrypted for performance reasons probably already know how to turn it off .
( and , even for those , hardware encryption chips would be extremely cheap if mass-produced ) .
Given the current processor speeds , 99 \ % of the network traffic should be encrypted and digitally signed .
At least , all human-produced content ( like e-mail , or this comment ) should .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And that makes me think: why isn't "encrypted" the standard for /all/ network protocols, unless explicitly requested by the servers?
For most uses, the processor isn't the bottleneck anyway, and those who run heavy-duty servers that need to run unencrypted for performance reasons probably already know how to turn it off.
(and, even for those, hardware encryption chips would be extremely cheap if mass-produced).
Given the current processor speeds, 99\% of the network traffic should be encrypted and digitally signed.
At least, all human-produced content (like e-mail, or this comment) should.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361975</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361723</id>
	<title>Re:My Dearest NSA,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245254700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>+1 Righteous Oprah-show Applause</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 Righteous Oprah-show Applause</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 Righteous Oprah-show Applause</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28367691</id>
	<title>Viewing internet traffic isn't illegal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245241140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The NSA isn't doing anything illegal.</p><p>Viewing internet traffic isn't illegal in the USA.  If you want anything traversing the internet to be private, it is up to each of us individually to encrypt the data stream between the 2 points.  Don't trust any service provider.</p><p>Internet data isn't legally protected in the same way that old land line telephone networks are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The NSA is n't doing anything illegal.Viewing internet traffic is n't illegal in the USA .
If you want anything traversing the internet to be private , it is up to each of us individually to encrypt the data stream between the 2 points .
Do n't trust any service provider.Internet data is n't legally protected in the same way that old land line telephone networks are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NSA isn't doing anything illegal.Viewing internet traffic isn't illegal in the USA.
If you want anything traversing the internet to be private, it is up to each of us individually to encrypt the data stream between the 2 points.
Don't trust any service provider.Internet data isn't legally protected in the same way that old land line telephone networks are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361231</id>
	<title>Surprise!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245252180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone else remember Carnivore? What makes you think that with the general consensus being "Warrants are for pussies" in the federal community that the NSA would act differently?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else remember Carnivore ?
What makes you think that with the general consensus being " Warrants are for pussies " in the federal community that the NSA would act differently ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else remember Carnivore?
What makes you think that with the general consensus being "Warrants are for pussies" in the federal community that the NSA would act differently?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361959</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, quit whining</title>
	<author>PeeAitchPee</author>
	<datestamp>1245255840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>the most "transformational" figure you could have possibly elected got in</i> </p><p>That's the root of the problem -- people think that BHO is "transformational" because he's a great used car salesman and he happens to be black, but in reality, that's all he is -- a slick used car salesmen who's big on charismatic speeches but woefully short on concrete details, who's selling universal healthcare, an end to the war in Iraq, and all of the other things the Democrats have over-promised during the election and under-delivered -- while every day sinking our country deeper in tremendous debt of levels never before conceived.  The Republicans have already proven that they're no better, BTW.</p><p>The glaringly obvious answer is to vote for third-party candidates.  I don't even care who at this point -- practically any new blood would be welcome.  Throw these sons-of-bitches the fuck out of DC and our state and local governments -- both Democrats and Republicans -- and lets see some candidates from other parties in power.  Quite frankly, short of a brutal dictatorship, it's pretty hard to imagine fucking things up worse than DC is now doing, on both sides of the aisle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the most " transformational " figure you could have possibly elected got in That 's the root of the problem -- people think that BHO is " transformational " because he 's a great used car salesman and he happens to be black , but in reality , that 's all he is -- a slick used car salesmen who 's big on charismatic speeches but woefully short on concrete details , who 's selling universal healthcare , an end to the war in Iraq , and all of the other things the Democrats have over-promised during the election and under-delivered -- while every day sinking our country deeper in tremendous debt of levels never before conceived .
The Republicans have already proven that they 're no better , BTW.The glaringly obvious answer is to vote for third-party candidates .
I do n't even care who at this point -- practically any new blood would be welcome .
Throw these sons-of-bitches the fuck out of DC and our state and local governments -- both Democrats and Republicans -- and lets see some candidates from other parties in power .
Quite frankly , short of a brutal dictatorship , it 's pretty hard to imagine fucking things up worse than DC is now doing , on both sides of the aisle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the most "transformational" figure you could have possibly elected got in That's the root of the problem -- people think that BHO is "transformational" because he's a great used car salesman and he happens to be black, but in reality, that's all he is -- a slick used car salesmen who's big on charismatic speeches but woefully short on concrete details, who's selling universal healthcare, an end to the war in Iraq, and all of the other things the Democrats have over-promised during the election and under-delivered -- while every day sinking our country deeper in tremendous debt of levels never before conceived.
The Republicans have already proven that they're no better, BTW.The glaringly obvious answer is to vote for third-party candidates.
I don't even care who at this point -- practically any new blood would be welcome.
Throw these sons-of-bitches the fuck out of DC and our state and local governments -- both Democrats and Republicans -- and lets see some candidates from other parties in power.
Quite frankly, short of a brutal dictatorship, it's pretty hard to imagine fucking things up worse than DC is now doing, on both sides of the aisle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362321</id>
	<title>Find out all about me!</title>
	<author>cam312</author>
	<datestamp>1245257700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the NSA is reading my e-mail, they will quickly discover that I "ne3d t0 lern to satisfy my w0man" and that my "pen!s is 2 small" and I need to buy some "v!agra for cheep!".  I hate that.  An invasion of my most intimate privacy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the NSA is reading my e-mail , they will quickly discover that I " ne3d t0 lern to satisfy my w0man " and that my " pen ! s is 2 small " and I need to buy some " v ! agra for cheep ! " .
I hate that .
An invasion of my most intimate privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the NSA is reading my e-mail, they will quickly discover that I "ne3d t0 lern to satisfy my w0man" and that my "pen!s is 2 small" and I need to buy some "v!agra for cheep!".
I hate that.
An invasion of my most intimate privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28364393</id>
	<title>Re:Which of our former classmates and colleagues .</title>
	<author>DrVomact</author>
	<datestamp>1245267540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Unfortunately this, and other data mining crap has been created and 1984 is alive and well and it can't be undone. All because some people - some programmers - thought that getting paid was better than doing what is moral and ethical in a free state. We are no longer free, ladies and gentlemen.</p></div></blockquote><p>
No, we're damned expensive. </p><p>Look, I was a bit overly optimistic 20 years ago myself. I thought the new technologies would bring a new era of freedom of expression and communication. I rejoiced over the fact that I could send email, and read and post to USENET at work, using company equipment&mdash;and my boss had no clue what was going on. I was so naive that I actually reveled in the illusion that people like me, people who <em>understood</em> the new technologies, had power.</p><p>
The extent of my naivete has become completely clear to me in the intervening years, of course. The process of clarification probably started when I got that phone call from the BATF about a posting I'd made in rec.guns. (Yes, like most people, I was using my real name. Imagine that.) Then came the Endless Fall, and, of course, the spammers. (I was still getting spam to that same email address I'd been using in 1988 when I finally quit in 2003).</p><p>
And of course the government had been busily hiring smart young programmers back before I had even heard of the internet. Remember, the government&mdash;specifically, DARPA&mdash;really did invent the Internet. (Though I doubt ALGOR ever worked for DARPA.)</p><p>
I'm surprised you're surprised that your "former classmates and colleagues" would work for the government or Evil Corporations. Heck, if scientists are willing to make hydrogen bombs, what makes you think computer programmers won't write data mining programs for the NSA, if paid sufficiently big bucks?</p><p>
Technology may have changed a lot over the past century, but nothing ever changes human nature. You can always depend on others, <em>especially</em> your classmates and colleagues, to screw you over for money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately this , and other data mining crap has been created and 1984 is alive and well and it ca n't be undone .
All because some people - some programmers - thought that getting paid was better than doing what is moral and ethical in a free state .
We are no longer free , ladies and gentlemen .
No , we 're damned expensive .
Look , I was a bit overly optimistic 20 years ago myself .
I thought the new technologies would bring a new era of freedom of expression and communication .
I rejoiced over the fact that I could send email , and read and post to USENET at work , using company equipment    and my boss had no clue what was going on .
I was so naive that I actually reveled in the illusion that people like me , people who understood the new technologies , had power .
The extent of my naivete has become completely clear to me in the intervening years , of course .
The process of clarification probably started when I got that phone call from the BATF about a posting I 'd made in rec.guns .
( Yes , like most people , I was using my real name .
Imagine that .
) Then came the Endless Fall , and , of course , the spammers .
( I was still getting spam to that same email address I 'd been using in 1988 when I finally quit in 2003 ) .
And of course the government had been busily hiring smart young programmers back before I had even heard of the internet .
Remember , the government    specifically , DARPA    really did invent the Internet .
( Though I doubt ALGOR ever worked for DARPA .
) I 'm surprised you 're surprised that your " former classmates and colleagues " would work for the government or Evil Corporations .
Heck , if scientists are willing to make hydrogen bombs , what makes you think computer programmers wo n't write data mining programs for the NSA , if paid sufficiently big bucks ?
Technology may have changed a lot over the past century , but nothing ever changes human nature .
You can always depend on others , especially your classmates and colleagues , to screw you over for money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately this, and other data mining crap has been created and 1984 is alive and well and it can't be undone.
All because some people - some programmers - thought that getting paid was better than doing what is moral and ethical in a free state.
We are no longer free, ladies and gentlemen.
No, we're damned expensive.
Look, I was a bit overly optimistic 20 years ago myself.
I thought the new technologies would bring a new era of freedom of expression and communication.
I rejoiced over the fact that I could send email, and read and post to USENET at work, using company equipment—and my boss had no clue what was going on.
I was so naive that I actually reveled in the illusion that people like me, people who understood the new technologies, had power.
The extent of my naivete has become completely clear to me in the intervening years, of course.
The process of clarification probably started when I got that phone call from the BATF about a posting I'd made in rec.guns.
(Yes, like most people, I was using my real name.
Imagine that.
) Then came the Endless Fall, and, of course, the spammers.
(I was still getting spam to that same email address I'd been using in 1988 when I finally quit in 2003).
And of course the government had been busily hiring smart young programmers back before I had even heard of the internet.
Remember, the government—specifically, DARPA—really did invent the Internet.
(Though I doubt ALGOR ever worked for DARPA.
)
I'm surprised you're surprised that your "former classmates and colleagues" would work for the government or Evil Corporations.
Heck, if scientists are willing to make hydrogen bombs, what makes you think computer programmers won't write data mining programs for the NSA, if paid sufficiently big bucks?
Technology may have changed a lot over the past century, but nothing ever changes human nature.
You can always depend on others, especially your classmates and colleagues, to screw you over for money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362611</id>
	<title>Oh, you mean they broke the law?</title>
	<author>Subm</author>
	<datestamp>1245259020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTA: "Since April, when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans <b>went beyond legal limits</b> in late 2008 and early 2009, several Congressional committees have been investigating."</p><p>Doesn't that mean they <i>broke the law</i>? What else can operating beyond legal limits mean?</p><p>Also FTA: "In an interview, Mr. Holt disputed assertions by Justice Department and national security officials that the overcollection was <b>inadvertent</b>."</p><p>What does inadvertency have to do with anything?!?</p><p>"Officer, I realize I was speeding, but it was <i>inadvertent</i>." Uh huh.</p><p>If the agents and agency breaking the law are allowed to get off with a warning, at least give them the warning. Don't hide that they broke the law behind a wall of doublespeak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTA : " Since April , when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009 , several Congressional committees have been investigating .
" Does n't that mean they broke the law ?
What else can operating beyond legal limits mean ? Also FTA : " In an interview , Mr. Holt disputed assertions by Justice Department and national security officials that the overcollection was inadvertent .
" What does inadvertency have to do with anything ? ! ?
" Officer , I realize I was speeding , but it was inadvertent .
" Uh huh.If the agents and agency breaking the law are allowed to get off with a warning , at least give them the warning .
Do n't hide that they broke the law behind a wall of doublespeak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTA: "Since April, when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009, several Congressional committees have been investigating.
"Doesn't that mean they broke the law?
What else can operating beyond legal limits mean?Also FTA: "In an interview, Mr. Holt disputed assertions by Justice Department and national security officials that the overcollection was inadvertent.
"What does inadvertency have to do with anything?!?
"Officer, I realize I was speeding, but it was inadvertent.
" Uh huh.If the agents and agency breaking the law are allowed to get off with a warning, at least give them the warning.
Don't hide that they broke the law behind a wall of doublespeak.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361907</id>
	<title>Re:Who cares?</title>
	<author>Shooter28</author>
	<datestamp>1245255600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I disagree with most of your statements what I want to know is why don't people get up in arms about Googles automatic scanning of emails to determine add content.
 <br> <br>
If you ever use gmail, or send mail to someone who uses gmail, the chances are that your email is already being scanned for key words.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I disagree with most of your statements what I want to know is why do n't people get up in arms about Googles automatic scanning of emails to determine add content .
If you ever use gmail , or send mail to someone who uses gmail , the chances are that your email is already being scanned for key words .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I disagree with most of your statements what I want to know is why don't people get up in arms about Googles automatic scanning of emails to determine add content.
If you ever use gmail, or send mail to someone who uses gmail, the chances are that your email is already being scanned for key words.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361447</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, quit whining</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1245253320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You got the government you deserve, just like your founders promised.</p></div><p>Uhhh.. Most of the illegal stuff was setup by Bush appointed neo-cons who were in government before Nixon got caught being a crook.<br>I mean, it's the same group of guys who've been trying to create pervasive monitoring <i>their entire lives</i>.<br>9/11 was an excuse for all the spying, not the cause of it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The Executive won't stop this, you know that now - the most "transformational" figure you could have possibly elected got in, and he's down with all of the new executive powers.</p></div><p>Which is rather frustrating.<br>In the USA, National Security &gt; systematic Constitutional violations</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You got the government you deserve , just like your founders promised.Uhhh.. Most of the illegal stuff was setup by Bush appointed neo-cons who were in government before Nixon got caught being a crook.I mean , it 's the same group of guys who 've been trying to create pervasive monitoring their entire lives.9/11 was an excuse for all the spying , not the cause of it.The Executive wo n't stop this , you know that now - the most " transformational " figure you could have possibly elected got in , and he 's down with all of the new executive powers.Which is rather frustrating.In the USA , National Security &gt; systematic Constitutional violations</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You got the government you deserve, just like your founders promised.Uhhh.. Most of the illegal stuff was setup by Bush appointed neo-cons who were in government before Nixon got caught being a crook.I mean, it's the same group of guys who've been trying to create pervasive monitoring their entire lives.9/11 was an excuse for all the spying, not the cause of it.The Executive won't stop this, you know that now - the most "transformational" figure you could have possibly elected got in, and he's down with all of the new executive powers.Which is rather frustrating.In the USA, National Security &gt; systematic Constitutional violations
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362565</id>
	<title>Name One</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1245258780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<i>The President is apparently not completely "down with" executive powers, since he has voluntarily given up a lot of power already.</i>"</p><p>Name one power President Obama has "willingly given up".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The President is apparently not completely " down with " executive powers , since he has voluntarily given up a lot of power already .
" Name one power President Obama has " willingly given up " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The President is apparently not completely "down with" executive powers, since he has voluntarily given up a lot of power already.
"Name one power President Obama has "willingly given up".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361565</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362541</id>
	<title>Re:My Dearest NSA,</title>
	<author>confabulationcomplex</author>
	<datestamp>1245258660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't say that kind of thing about people who are trying to help you, however misguided you think they are . . . what's your plan for finding terrorists and schemers in this day in age?  The fundamental problem with calling ourselves free citizens, and letting that define us at face value is that there is no accountability for those that would enjoy our liberties only to actively try to subvert them.


The people of which I speak are not the people that are trying to devise ways of separating the real free people from the ones with designs of our ultimate downfall.


I contest that as long as freedom of action holds strong in our nation, we are free.  No matter how much data hijacking takes place, "we are free until proven impaired", if you will.  Now I'm not suggesting that we ignore the "Big Brother" debate as if it's inevitable.  But if someone looks at a love letter you wrote, reads it, and passes it by because it isn't a terrorist plot, how does it infringe upon your freedom?  Rights? Maybe . . . that's a different discussion entirely.  But don't you dare insinuate that honest people at the NSA have a voyeuristic fetish knowing every detail about your life.  They don't give a rats ass about you the way you are.  Now on the other hand, if you start conversing with someone about how you think the radical Muslims doing a good thing and show an interest in helping them, I hope with all my heart they track you down and find out why you wrote that.


Of course I say all of that in more or less the fourth person . . . I wouldn't dare insinuate that a patriot like you would ever do such a thing . . . pfft, humbug.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't say that kind of thing about people who are trying to help you , however misguided you think they are .
. .
what 's your plan for finding terrorists and schemers in this day in age ?
The fundamental problem with calling ourselves free citizens , and letting that define us at face value is that there is no accountability for those that would enjoy our liberties only to actively try to subvert them .
The people of which I speak are not the people that are trying to devise ways of separating the real free people from the ones with designs of our ultimate downfall .
I contest that as long as freedom of action holds strong in our nation , we are free .
No matter how much data hijacking takes place , " we are free until proven impaired " , if you will .
Now I 'm not suggesting that we ignore the " Big Brother " debate as if it 's inevitable .
But if someone looks at a love letter you wrote , reads it , and passes it by because it is n't a terrorist plot , how does it infringe upon your freedom ?
Rights ? Maybe .
. .
that 's a different discussion entirely .
But do n't you dare insinuate that honest people at the NSA have a voyeuristic fetish knowing every detail about your life .
They do n't give a rats ass about you the way you are .
Now on the other hand , if you start conversing with someone about how you think the radical Muslims doing a good thing and show an interest in helping them , I hope with all my heart they track you down and find out why you wrote that .
Of course I say all of that in more or less the fourth person .
. .
I would n't dare insinuate that a patriot like you would ever do such a thing .
. .
pfft , humbug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't say that kind of thing about people who are trying to help you, however misguided you think they are .
. .
what's your plan for finding terrorists and schemers in this day in age?
The fundamental problem with calling ourselves free citizens, and letting that define us at face value is that there is no accountability for those that would enjoy our liberties only to actively try to subvert them.
The people of which I speak are not the people that are trying to devise ways of separating the real free people from the ones with designs of our ultimate downfall.
I contest that as long as freedom of action holds strong in our nation, we are free.
No matter how much data hijacking takes place, "we are free until proven impaired", if you will.
Now I'm not suggesting that we ignore the "Big Brother" debate as if it's inevitable.
But if someone looks at a love letter you wrote, reads it, and passes it by because it isn't a terrorist plot, how does it infringe upon your freedom?
Rights? Maybe .
. .
that's a different discussion entirely.
But don't you dare insinuate that honest people at the NSA have a voyeuristic fetish knowing every detail about your life.
They don't give a rats ass about you the way you are.
Now on the other hand, if you start conversing with someone about how you think the radical Muslims doing a good thing and show an interest in helping them, I hope with all my heart they track you down and find out why you wrote that.
Of course I say all of that in more or less the fourth person .
. .
I wouldn't dare insinuate that a patriot like you would ever do such a thing .
. .
pfft, humbug.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361941</id>
	<title>Re:SMIME</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1245255720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're kidding right?<br>A x.509 certificate will only slow the NSA down a few seconds (if that).</p></div><p>That's all it takes to essentially opt out of these trolling expeditions.<br>If they decide to focus on you specifically, then you've got other problems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're kidding right ? A x.509 certificate will only slow the NSA down a few seconds ( if that ) .That 's all it takes to essentially opt out of these trolling expeditions.If they decide to focus on you specifically , then you 've got other problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're kidding right?A x.509 certificate will only slow the NSA down a few seconds (if that).That's all it takes to essentially opt out of these trolling expeditions.If they decide to focus on you specifically, then you've got other problems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361899</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, quit whining</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245255540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Allright then! *hopes they have not seen the educational movie "how not to be seen"*</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>HAI<br>
&nbsp; I HAZ A GVRNMNT<br>
&nbsp; IM IN YR LOOP<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; VISIBLE "FIRE!"! AUDBL "*BANG*""<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; NERFZ GVRNMNT!!<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; IZ GVRNMNT LIEK 0?<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; YARLY<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; KTHXBYE!<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; NOWAI<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; VISIBLE "MOAR!"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; KTHX<br>
&nbsp; KTHX<br>KTHXBYE</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p> <tt>lolrus@icanhascheezburger.com ~ $<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./sjlol.py gvrnmnt.lol<br>FAIL: INFINITZ LOOPXORZ!</tt></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Allright then !
* hopes they have not seen the educational movie " how not to be seen " * HAI   I HAZ A GVRNMNT   IM IN YR LOOP     VISIBLE " FIRE ! " !
AUDBL " * BANG * " "     NERFZ GVRNMNT ! !
    IZ GVRNMNT LIEK 0 ?
      YARLY         KTHXBYE !
      NOWAI         VISIBLE " MOAR !
"     KTHX   KTHXKTHXBYE lolrus @ icanhascheezburger.com ~ $ ./sjlol.py gvrnmnt.lolFAIL : INFINITZ LOOPXORZ !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allright then!
*hopes they have not seen the educational movie "how not to be seen"* HAI
  I HAZ A GVRNMNT
  IM IN YR LOOP
    VISIBLE "FIRE!"!
AUDBL "*BANG*""
    NERFZ GVRNMNT!!
    IZ GVRNMNT LIEK 0?
      YARLY
        KTHXBYE!
      NOWAI
        VISIBLE "MOAR!
"
    KTHX
  KTHXKTHXBYE  lolrus@icanhascheezburger.com ~ $ ./sjlol.py gvrnmnt.lolFAIL: INFINITZ LOOPXORZ!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361389</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, quit whining</title>
	<author>japhering</author>
	<datestamp>1245253020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Start firing congressmen and senators in significant numbers, and things will change. Otherwise, quit the damn whining.</p></div></blockquote><p>Sorry, I can whine all I want.. I didn't vote for anyone in charge for just those reasons.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Start firing congressmen and senators in significant numbers , and things will change .
Otherwise , quit the damn whining.Sorry , I can whine all I want.. I did n't vote for anyone in charge for just those reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Start firing congressmen and senators in significant numbers, and things will change.
Otherwise, quit the damn whining.Sorry, I can whine all I want.. I didn't vote for anyone in charge for just those reasons.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361217</id>
	<title>afraid to reply because...</title>
	<author>Minion of Eris</author>
	<datestamp>1245252120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>the NSA might read my comments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the NSA might read my comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the NSA might read my comments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28365865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28364149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361733
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361767
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362155
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28373011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28370305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28364303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28365345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28367185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362087
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28368195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363661
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28364905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28364393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28367163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28370363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28367497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_17_1323207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1323207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28365345
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1323207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361773
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361447
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362543
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363929
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361959
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28370363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28370305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361565
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362565
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361381
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1323207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28364149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1323207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361523
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1323207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361375
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1323207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362433
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1323207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362087
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1323207.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28367185
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1323207.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362617
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28365865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362541
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1323207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361333
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1323207.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361799
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1323207.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361687
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1323207.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28366143
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1323207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28368195
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1323207.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361391
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361941
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362709
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362803
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361643
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362465
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28364905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362557
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1323207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28366293
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1323207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28362387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28367497
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1323207.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28373011
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_17_1323207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28361823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28364393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28367163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28364303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_17_1323207.28363035
</commentlist>
</conversation>
