<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_07_181256</id>
	<title>Four Missed Opportunities for Privacy</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1246992240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>The NY Times has a blog posting on the occasion of the <a href="http://www.iab.net/media/file/ven-principles-07-01-09.pdf">Internet advertising industry's release</a> (PDF) of what it describes as tough new standards governing the collection and use of data about users' behavior. The Times' Saul Hansell describes these "new" standards as <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/four-privacy-protections-the-ad-industry-left-out/">more of the same old status quo</a>, and outlines four privacy-enhancing ideas, being discussed by Google, Yahoo, the FTC, and Congress, that the IAB has completely ignored. These principles are: every ad should explain itself; users should be able to see data collected about them; browsers should help enforce user choices about tracking; and some information (medical and financial) is simply too sensitive to track.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The NY Times has a blog posting on the occasion of the Internet advertising industry 's release ( PDF ) of what it describes as tough new standards governing the collection and use of data about users ' behavior .
The Times ' Saul Hansell describes these " new " standards as more of the same old status quo , and outlines four privacy-enhancing ideas , being discussed by Google , Yahoo , the FTC , and Congress , that the IAB has completely ignored .
These principles are : every ad should explain itself ; users should be able to see data collected about them ; browsers should help enforce user choices about tracking ; and some information ( medical and financial ) is simply too sensitive to track .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The NY Times has a blog posting on the occasion of the Internet advertising industry's release (PDF) of what it describes as tough new standards governing the collection and use of data about users' behavior.
The Times' Saul Hansell describes these "new" standards as more of the same old status quo, and outlines four privacy-enhancing ideas, being discussed by Google, Yahoo, the FTC, and Congress, that the IAB has completely ignored.
These principles are: every ad should explain itself; users should be able to see data collected about them; browsers should help enforce user choices about tracking; and some information (medical and financial) is simply too sensitive to track.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612461</id>
	<title>Solution</title>
	<author>Sarcasmooo!</author>
	<datestamp>1246998180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Install adblock extension, disable 3rd party cookie files, use software that ads advertising domains to your hosts file.</p><p>As far as I can tell the internet doesn't even have banner ads anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Install adblock extension , disable 3rd party cookie files , use software that ads advertising domains to your hosts file.As far as I can tell the internet does n't even have banner ads anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Install adblock extension, disable 3rd party cookie files, use software that ads advertising domains to your hosts file.As far as I can tell the internet doesn't even have banner ads anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612215</id>
	<title>Mostly not going to happen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246997340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ads will never "explain themselves" and companies will never reveal how much information they harvest from you (outside of lengthy, dull, usage terms written in Jargon.) Either case would make users skittish, and there's too much money involved for either them or congress to want to do anything about it.</p><p>As for medical and financial information, it's incredibly sensitive, yes, but having it tracked is incredibly convenient for both lay people and companies (if inconvenient for the IT staff who have to secure them.) Either way, these records have to be kept somewhere and somehow and be accessible in some way to people who need them (doctors and banks.)</p><p>The only change I see possible is improvement in the browsers. If any privacy change does occur, you can bet that it will start with either Firefox, Opera, or some non-mainstream browser, and then be eventually adopted by IE. Don't expect the end-users to know how to enable any privacy features though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ads will never " explain themselves " and companies will never reveal how much information they harvest from you ( outside of lengthy , dull , usage terms written in Jargon .
) Either case would make users skittish , and there 's too much money involved for either them or congress to want to do anything about it.As for medical and financial information , it 's incredibly sensitive , yes , but having it tracked is incredibly convenient for both lay people and companies ( if inconvenient for the IT staff who have to secure them .
) Either way , these records have to be kept somewhere and somehow and be accessible in some way to people who need them ( doctors and banks .
) The only change I see possible is improvement in the browsers .
If any privacy change does occur , you can bet that it will start with either Firefox , Opera , or some non-mainstream browser , and then be eventually adopted by IE .
Do n't expect the end-users to know how to enable any privacy features though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ads will never "explain themselves" and companies will never reveal how much information they harvest from you (outside of lengthy, dull, usage terms written in Jargon.
) Either case would make users skittish, and there's too much money involved for either them or congress to want to do anything about it.As for medical and financial information, it's incredibly sensitive, yes, but having it tracked is incredibly convenient for both lay people and companies (if inconvenient for the IT staff who have to secure them.
) Either way, these records have to be kept somewhere and somehow and be accessible in some way to people who need them (doctors and banks.
)The only change I see possible is improvement in the browsers.
If any privacy change does occur, you can bet that it will start with either Firefox, Opera, or some non-mainstream browser, and then be eventually adopted by IE.
Don't expect the end-users to know how to enable any privacy features though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28614469</id>
	<title>Google? Privacy?  Hah!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246963020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Google is really interested in privacy, if their motto of "don't be evil" isn't mere words, then why do I have to enable google.com cookies when accessing gmail, since they also have gmail.google.com cookies?  When browsing the web, I have my browser set to "ask" about each cookie.  Those from sites I don't log into are set in the browser as "always reject".  My browser is also set to treat all accepted cookies, regardless of expiration, as session cookies.  So when I go to yahoo where I don't have an account, I set to "always reject" just once, and I never see another dialogue pop up ever again about yahoo.com.  Why can't I do this with google.com?  Having to repeatedly reject cookies that refuse to take no as an answer and therefore the google cookie dialogue box keeps popping up whenever I use google's search, that gets tiring. But either I have to do this, or I have to set it to reject all google cookies, but then when I need to check gmail, I not only have to allow gmail.google.com cookies, but I also have to open up the cookie settings dialogue box, then scroll down the url list of "reject all" until I find www.google.com and remove it from the list.  Then I can accept google cookies and gmail cookies, which then allows me to access my gmail account.  If Google were really concerned about users' privacy, you'd be able to access your gmail account by only accepting gmail cookies, and Google wouldn't require you to also accept the cookies from www.google.com, the same cookies from their search application.  But since they are able to force you to choose to deal with the hassle of rejecting google.com cookies on every visit to gmail.com or to just have you capitulate and accept all google.com cookies just to check gmail (and then they can use the cookies you accepted for gmail entry to track your actions on all their other internet domains/properties they own or are "affiliated" with) which is really their goal, then they are able to use cookies for tracking where other companies may not be able to because users can just "reject all" on their first visit to the other sites, and then they (web users) won't have to be forced to deal with the cookies dialogue boxes.
<br> <br>
If google were really concerned about users' privacy, or concerned about "being evil", then they wouldn't require acceptance of google.com cookies just to check/read new emails, they would just accept the use of gmail.google.com cookies and not require google.com cookies as well for accessing gmail accounts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google is really interested in privacy , if their motto of " do n't be evil " is n't mere words , then why do I have to enable google.com cookies when accessing gmail , since they also have gmail.google.com cookies ?
When browsing the web , I have my browser set to " ask " about each cookie .
Those from sites I do n't log into are set in the browser as " always reject " .
My browser is also set to treat all accepted cookies , regardless of expiration , as session cookies .
So when I go to yahoo where I do n't have an account , I set to " always reject " just once , and I never see another dialogue pop up ever again about yahoo.com .
Why ca n't I do this with google.com ?
Having to repeatedly reject cookies that refuse to take no as an answer and therefore the google cookie dialogue box keeps popping up whenever I use google 's search , that gets tiring .
But either I have to do this , or I have to set it to reject all google cookies , but then when I need to check gmail , I not only have to allow gmail.google.com cookies , but I also have to open up the cookie settings dialogue box , then scroll down the url list of " reject all " until I find www.google.com and remove it from the list .
Then I can accept google cookies and gmail cookies , which then allows me to access my gmail account .
If Google were really concerned about users ' privacy , you 'd be able to access your gmail account by only accepting gmail cookies , and Google would n't require you to also accept the cookies from www.google.com , the same cookies from their search application .
But since they are able to force you to choose to deal with the hassle of rejecting google.com cookies on every visit to gmail.com or to just have you capitulate and accept all google.com cookies just to check gmail ( and then they can use the cookies you accepted for gmail entry to track your actions on all their other internet domains/properties they own or are " affiliated " with ) which is really their goal , then they are able to use cookies for tracking where other companies may not be able to because users can just " reject all " on their first visit to the other sites , and then they ( web users ) wo n't have to be forced to deal with the cookies dialogue boxes .
If google were really concerned about users ' privacy , or concerned about " being evil " , then they would n't require acceptance of google.com cookies just to check/read new emails , they would just accept the use of gmail.google.com cookies and not require google.com cookies as well for accessing gmail accounts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google is really interested in privacy, if their motto of "don't be evil" isn't mere words, then why do I have to enable google.com cookies when accessing gmail, since they also have gmail.google.com cookies?
When browsing the web, I have my browser set to "ask" about each cookie.
Those from sites I don't log into are set in the browser as "always reject".
My browser is also set to treat all accepted cookies, regardless of expiration, as session cookies.
So when I go to yahoo where I don't have an account, I set to "always reject" just once, and I never see another dialogue pop up ever again about yahoo.com.
Why can't I do this with google.com?
Having to repeatedly reject cookies that refuse to take no as an answer and therefore the google cookie dialogue box keeps popping up whenever I use google's search, that gets tiring.
But either I have to do this, or I have to set it to reject all google cookies, but then when I need to check gmail, I not only have to allow gmail.google.com cookies, but I also have to open up the cookie settings dialogue box, then scroll down the url list of "reject all" until I find www.google.com and remove it from the list.
Then I can accept google cookies and gmail cookies, which then allows me to access my gmail account.
If Google were really concerned about users' privacy, you'd be able to access your gmail account by only accepting gmail cookies, and Google wouldn't require you to also accept the cookies from www.google.com, the same cookies from their search application.
But since they are able to force you to choose to deal with the hassle of rejecting google.com cookies on every visit to gmail.com or to just have you capitulate and accept all google.com cookies just to check gmail (and then they can use the cookies you accepted for gmail entry to track your actions on all their other internet domains/properties they own or are "affiliated" with) which is really their goal, then they are able to use cookies for tracking where other companies may not be able to because users can just "reject all" on their first visit to the other sites, and then they (web users) won't have to be forced to deal with the cookies dialogue boxes.
If google were really concerned about users' privacy, or concerned about "being evil", then they wouldn't require acceptance of google.com cookies just to check/read new emails, they would just accept the use of gmail.google.com cookies and not require google.com cookies as well for accessing gmail accounts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612597</id>
	<title>Re:I'm completely shocked...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246998720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, people should protect themselves from their own stupidity. But apparently, creating a government that bars others within their society from taking advantage of their stupidity is not a permissible mechanism to protect themselves?</p><p>Now I suppose you'll tell me that since everyone should ensure that they can defend themselves, they should not create an organization of defense specialists tasked with securing the defense of the society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , people should protect themselves from their own stupidity .
But apparently , creating a government that bars others within their society from taking advantage of their stupidity is not a permissible mechanism to protect themselves ? Now I suppose you 'll tell me that since everyone should ensure that they can defend themselves , they should not create an organization of defense specialists tasked with securing the defense of the society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, people should protect themselves from their own stupidity.
But apparently, creating a government that bars others within their society from taking advantage of their stupidity is not a permissible mechanism to protect themselves?Now I suppose you'll tell me that since everyone should ensure that they can defend themselves, they should not create an organization of defense specialists tasked with securing the defense of the society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28620583</id>
	<title>Privacy fails even when you BUY services</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1247062080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I recently bought two event services (one for a concert and two for joining a local city kickball team).  Two weeks later I got rolling stone magazine (had my full name, address and e-mail).  With no phone number available I had to e-mail the place (via their web form) to find out how they got my information and that I didn't order a subscription to two years of rolling stone.  According to them the event pass i bought is what auto subscribed me (unbeknownst to me).  I asked them to tell me who did this so I can contact the place and tell them to stop giving my information (afterall I BOUGHT a product).  They e-mailed me telling me they do not have this information....<br> <br>

Privacy is dead.<br> <br>

On a side note i will be calling rolling stone corporate and complaining (i told the person in the e-mail to purge my info from their DB but that part of my message got ignored).  THen I am calling the two places I bought event passes to (probably the concert) and complain to their corporate...probably all of it will get ignored.<br> <br>

Then it will be time to complain to the BBB.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently bought two event services ( one for a concert and two for joining a local city kickball team ) .
Two weeks later I got rolling stone magazine ( had my full name , address and e-mail ) .
With no phone number available I had to e-mail the place ( via their web form ) to find out how they got my information and that I did n't order a subscription to two years of rolling stone .
According to them the event pass i bought is what auto subscribed me ( unbeknownst to me ) .
I asked them to tell me who did this so I can contact the place and tell them to stop giving my information ( afterall I BOUGHT a product ) .
They e-mailed me telling me they do not have this information... . Privacy is dead .
On a side note i will be calling rolling stone corporate and complaining ( i told the person in the e-mail to purge my info from their DB but that part of my message got ignored ) .
THen I am calling the two places I bought event passes to ( probably the concert ) and complain to their corporate...probably all of it will get ignored .
Then it will be time to complain to the BBB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently bought two event services (one for a concert and two for joining a local city kickball team).
Two weeks later I got rolling stone magazine (had my full name, address and e-mail).
With no phone number available I had to e-mail the place (via their web form) to find out how they got my information and that I didn't order a subscription to two years of rolling stone.
According to them the event pass i bought is what auto subscribed me (unbeknownst to me).
I asked them to tell me who did this so I can contact the place and tell them to stop giving my information (afterall I BOUGHT a product).
They e-mailed me telling me they do not have this information.... 

Privacy is dead.
On a side note i will be calling rolling stone corporate and complaining (i told the person in the e-mail to purge my info from their DB but that part of my message got ignored).
THen I am calling the two places I bought event passes to (probably the concert) and complain to their corporate...probably all of it will get ignored.
Then it will be time to complain to the BBB.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613271</id>
	<title>Re:Valid but not simple?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246958460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If your company has information about me, I should be able to know what information you have.</p></div><p>Hello Mr. Nine Times,

</p><p>Thank you for visiting our website. Our databases currently contain 133 records of information related to you. To show you this information, we need to validate your identity.</p><p>Please enter the following information in order to continue:</p><p>SSN: [\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]
</p><p>Date of birth: [\_\_] / [\_\_] / [\_\_]
</p><p>Facebook username: [\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]
</p><p>Amount of your last electric bill: $[\_\_\_.\_\_]

</p><p>[Submit]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If your company has information about me , I should be able to know what information you have.Hello Mr. Nine Times , Thank you for visiting our website .
Our databases currently contain 133 records of information related to you .
To show you this information , we need to validate your identity.Please enter the following information in order to continue : SSN : [ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ ] Date of birth : [ \ _ \ _ ] / [ \ _ \ _ ] / [ \ _ \ _ ] Facebook username : [ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ ] Amount of your last electric bill : $ [ \ _ \ _ \ _. \ _ \ _ ] [ Submit ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your company has information about me, I should be able to know what information you have.Hello Mr. Nine Times,

Thank you for visiting our website.
Our databases currently contain 133 records of information related to you.
To show you this information, we need to validate your identity.Please enter the following information in order to continue:SSN: [\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]
Date of birth: [\_\_] / [\_\_] / [\_\_]
Facebook username: [\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]
Amount of your last electric bill: $[\_\_\_.\_\_]

[Submit]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612827</id>
	<title>Re:I'm completely shocked...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246999620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When was the last time any boycotting against big corp worked? Could anyone stop Walmart from importing goods made with slave wage?<br>How can you boycott gmail and hotmail and still use the internet to communicate. Is your solution only for the few people who can pay for their own email server?<br>What abundance of knowledge would prevent double click from figuring out you whether someone is a gay or a redneck? Oh may be just cut the chord and the wireless? How do I cut wireless(absurd) -:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When was the last time any boycotting against big corp worked ?
Could anyone stop Walmart from importing goods made with slave wage ? How can you boycott gmail and hotmail and still use the internet to communicate .
Is your solution only for the few people who can pay for their own email server ? What abundance of knowledge would prevent double click from figuring out you whether someone is a gay or a redneck ?
Oh may be just cut the chord and the wireless ?
How do I cut wireless ( absurd ) - : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When was the last time any boycotting against big corp worked?
Could anyone stop Walmart from importing goods made with slave wage?How can you boycott gmail and hotmail and still use the internet to communicate.
Is your solution only for the few people who can pay for their own email server?What abundance of knowledge would prevent double click from figuring out you whether someone is a gay or a redneck?
Oh may be just cut the chord and the wireless?
How do I cut wireless(absurd) -:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612771</id>
	<title>Re:I'm completely shocked...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246999320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would be nice if the government would pass regulations with teeth, regulations that would say in effect "your data are yours and cannot be transferred to a third party without your express written consent".</p><p>A pony would be nice, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be nice if the government would pass regulations with teeth , regulations that would say in effect " your data are yours and can not be transferred to a third party without your express written consent " .A pony would be nice , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be nice if the government would pass regulations with teeth, regulations that would say in effect "your data are yours and cannot be transferred to a third party without your express written consent".A pony would be nice, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28611927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613005</id>
	<title>Re:Won't work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246957320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every ad should explain itself? How are you going to do that on something that takes up 1/6th of a normal computer screen.</p></div><p>This depends on how you define "explain itself". My hope is that this would make illegal the ads that say "punch the monkey and win a prize" or "your internet connection is not secure" or any of a number of ridiculous things, and force ads to advertise the product they are selling. that way you know what you're clicking on before you do? I know these ads aren't a problem for experienced users, but there are still a LOT of people who fall for this garbage.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every ad should explain itself ?
How are you going to do that on something that takes up 1/6th of a normal computer screen.This depends on how you define " explain itself " .
My hope is that this would make illegal the ads that say " punch the monkey and win a prize " or " your internet connection is not secure " or any of a number of ridiculous things , and force ads to advertise the product they are selling .
that way you know what you 're clicking on before you do ?
I know these ads are n't a problem for experienced users , but there are still a LOT of people who fall for this garbage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every ad should explain itself?
How are you going to do that on something that takes up 1/6th of a normal computer screen.This depends on how you define "explain itself".
My hope is that this would make illegal the ads that say "punch the monkey and win a prize" or "your internet connection is not secure" or any of a number of ridiculous things, and force ads to advertise the product they are selling.
that way you know what you're clicking on before you do?
I know these ads aren't a problem for experienced users, but there are still a LOT of people who fall for this garbage.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612213</id>
	<title>Title sounds like</title>
	<author>Darkman, Walkin Dude</author>
	<datestamp>1246997280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A letter to penthouse...</htmltext>
<tokenext>A letter to penthouse.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A letter to penthouse...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28611927</id>
	<title>I'm completely shocked...</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1246996020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean that "self regulation" fails when it is opposed to self interest? Who could have guessed?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean that " self regulation " fails when it is opposed to self interest ?
Who could have guessed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean that "self regulation" fails when it is opposed to self interest?
Who could have guessed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612339</id>
	<title>Cue the Testosterone</title>
	<author>TaoPhoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1246997700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Re: Ads explaining themselves.<br>-- Sacrifical Lamb to give so they can deny the other three. I have no problem *understanding*</p><p>THE HUGE AD FOR SAVE ENDANGERED GM!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p><p>It's the EXCITING INTERACTIVE PAGE-EATING DYNAMIC MULTIPLEXED SCRIPTS AND FRIENDS that suk here.</p><p>The others fall under "1984 is too sexy to give up."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Re : Ads explaining themselves.-- Sacrifical Lamb to give so they can deny the other three .
I have no problem * understanding * THE HUGE AD FOR SAVE ENDANGERED GM ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! It 's the EXCITING INTERACTIVE PAGE-EATING DYNAMIC MULTIPLEXED SCRIPTS AND FRIENDS that suk here.The others fall under " 1984 is too sexy to give up .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re: Ads explaining themselves.-- Sacrifical Lamb to give so they can deny the other three.
I have no problem *understanding*THE HUGE AD FOR SAVE ENDANGERED GM!!!!!!!!!!!!
!It's the EXCITING INTERACTIVE PAGE-EATING DYNAMIC MULTIPLEXED SCRIPTS AND FRIENDS that suk here.The others fall under "1984 is too sexy to give up.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613081</id>
	<title>Re:I'm completely shocked...</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1246957620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It would be quite simple to organize boycotts against products and companies that don't give you adequate information.</p> </div><p>The reality of boycotts is that they're a fairly extraordinary measure and not easy to organize on a scale that has an effect.  The purpose of laws includes allowing even a single person to get justice in a case where he is the only person who has been wronged.
</p><p>And should we say, "Hey, no point in having child labor laws.  People can just boycott companies who use child labor if they don't like it"?  Or "Screw the FDA.  If someone is selling ineffective drugs and enough people die from treatable disease as a result, then people won't buy drugs from that company anymore"?
</p><p>If we all agree that there is some kind of activity that is clearly out of the bounds of responsible behavior, then what's wrong with making a law which bans it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be quite simple to organize boycotts against products and companies that do n't give you adequate information .
The reality of boycotts is that they 're a fairly extraordinary measure and not easy to organize on a scale that has an effect .
The purpose of laws includes allowing even a single person to get justice in a case where he is the only person who has been wronged .
And should we say , " Hey , no point in having child labor laws .
People can just boycott companies who use child labor if they do n't like it " ?
Or " Screw the FDA .
If someone is selling ineffective drugs and enough people die from treatable disease as a result , then people wo n't buy drugs from that company anymore " ?
If we all agree that there is some kind of activity that is clearly out of the bounds of responsible behavior , then what 's wrong with making a law which bans it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be quite simple to organize boycotts against products and companies that don't give you adequate information.
The reality of boycotts is that they're a fairly extraordinary measure and not easy to organize on a scale that has an effect.
The purpose of laws includes allowing even a single person to get justice in a case where he is the only person who has been wronged.
And should we say, "Hey, no point in having child labor laws.
People can just boycott companies who use child labor if they don't like it"?
Or "Screw the FDA.
If someone is selling ineffective drugs and enough people die from treatable disease as a result, then people won't buy drugs from that company anymore"?
If we all agree that there is some kind of activity that is clearly out of the bounds of responsible behavior, then what's wrong with making a law which bans it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612717</id>
	<title>"Cookies"</title>
	<author>orngjce223</author>
	<datestamp>1246999200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a grain of truth here.  Cookies have a nice cutesy name to them that makes them seem innocent.  It's "just" an edible text file, that's all!</p><p>Why not call them something else?  Take a page out of PETA's book; call them turds or something!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a grain of truth here .
Cookies have a nice cutesy name to them that makes them seem innocent .
It 's " just " an edible text file , that 's all ! Why not call them something else ?
Take a page out of PETA 's book ; call them turds or something !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a grain of truth here.
Cookies have a nice cutesy name to them that makes them seem innocent.
It's "just" an edible text file, that's all!Why not call them something else?
Take a page out of PETA's book; call them turds or something!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28618245</id>
	<title>Re:I'm completely shocked...</title>
	<author>1u3hr</author>
	<datestamp>1246992540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It would be quite simple to organize boycotts against products and companies that don't give you adequate information.</i> <p>

If it were "so simple" why doesn't anyone do it?
</p><p>
Becasue it would require you to give up your day job and devote yourself to it full time for months to get anywhere. And then, very likely have zero effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be quite simple to organize boycotts against products and companies that do n't give you adequate information .
If it were " so simple " why does n't anyone do it ?
Becasue it would require you to give up your day job and devote yourself to it full time for months to get anywhere .
And then , very likely have zero effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be quite simple to organize boycotts against products and companies that don't give you adequate information.
If it were "so simple" why doesn't anyone do it?
Becasue it would require you to give up your day job and devote yourself to it full time for months to get anywhere.
And then, very likely have zero effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612535</id>
	<title>Re:Valid but not simple?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246998480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the US, I believe there are laws that a citizen can demand a corporate entity to reveal or delete information about that citizen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US , I believe there are laws that a citizen can demand a corporate entity to reveal or delete information about that citizen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US, I believe there are laws that a citizen can demand a corporate entity to reveal or delete information about that citizen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612067</id>
	<title>Re:I'm completely shocked...</title>
	<author>megamerican</author>
	<datestamp>1246996680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People now expect government to do everything for them including protection against their own stupidity.</p><p>It would be quite simple to organize boycotts against products and companies that don't give you adequate information. However, people have forgotten that they have much more power than a beaurocrat ever will. What they get in return for their lost vigilence are corrupt politicians who sell them out and then they wonder how things went bad.</p><p>This is just another example of "my people suffer for lack of knowledge." If you think the government will do everything for you, then you'll end up like the Obsolete Man (a great Twilight Zone episode).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People now expect government to do everything for them including protection against their own stupidity.It would be quite simple to organize boycotts against products and companies that do n't give you adequate information .
However , people have forgotten that they have much more power than a beaurocrat ever will .
What they get in return for their lost vigilence are corrupt politicians who sell them out and then they wonder how things went bad.This is just another example of " my people suffer for lack of knowledge .
" If you think the government will do everything for you , then you 'll end up like the Obsolete Man ( a great Twilight Zone episode ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People now expect government to do everything for them including protection against their own stupidity.It would be quite simple to organize boycotts against products and companies that don't give you adequate information.
However, people have forgotten that they have much more power than a beaurocrat ever will.
What they get in return for their lost vigilence are corrupt politicians who sell them out and then they wonder how things went bad.This is just another example of "my people suffer for lack of knowledge.
" If you think the government will do everything for you, then you'll end up like the Obsolete Man (a great Twilight Zone episode).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28611927</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612179</id>
	<title>Slashdot Privacy Memo: Extra Jalapeno Urgent +3</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246997160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember, the N.S.A. intercepts EVERYTHING.</p><p>Therefore, encrypt EVERYTHING.</p><p>Yours In Obfuscation,<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swXqa\_jkfvs" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Kilgore Trout</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>P.S. CheneyIsAwArCriMinAlBushIsAnAlCoHoLicProsecuteAfghanistanIraqJihad</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember , the N.S.A .
intercepts EVERYTHING.Therefore , encrypt EVERYTHING.Yours In Obfuscation,Kilgore Trout [ youtube.com ] P.S .
CheneyIsAwArCriMinAlBushIsAnAlCoHoLicProsecuteAfghanistanIraqJihad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember, the N.S.A.
intercepts EVERYTHING.Therefore, encrypt EVERYTHING.Yours In Obfuscation,Kilgore Trout [youtube.com]P.S.
CheneyIsAwArCriMinAlBushIsAnAlCoHoLicProsecuteAfghanistanIraqJihad</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28611925</id>
	<title>first</title>
	<author>nausea\_malvarma</author>
	<datestamp>1246996020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>shitcock</htmltext>
<tokenext>shitcock</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shitcock</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613795</id>
	<title>Re:Valid but not simple?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246960380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anything you put into your browser. Anything you click on, mouse over, etc. And darnit, if you don't want to be tracked, turn off cookies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anything you put into your browser .
Anything you click on , mouse over , etc .
And darnit , if you do n't want to be tracked , turn off cookies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anything you put into your browser.
Anything you click on, mouse over, etc.
And darnit, if you don't want to be tracked, turn off cookies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612421</id>
	<title>Ads explaining themselves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246998060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Buy this viagra right now and the scam will be smaller while your penis will be bigger!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Buy this viagra right now and the scam will be smaller while your penis will be bigger !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Buy this viagra right now and the scam will be smaller while your penis will be bigger!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613537</id>
	<title>Re:Mostly not going to happen</title>
	<author>fortyonejb</author>
	<datestamp>1246959360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As the other poster said, Chrome has incognito, IE released private browsing with v.8 and firefox did the same with 3.5. The browsers today are doing what they can, but when sites require specific tracking to function, the browser is limited in what it <i>can</i> do.

Also, the thinly veiled jab at IE was appropriate for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. yet factually untrue,</htmltext>
<tokenext>As the other poster said , Chrome has incognito , IE released private browsing with v.8 and firefox did the same with 3.5 .
The browsers today are doing what they can , but when sites require specific tracking to function , the browser is limited in what it can do .
Also , the thinly veiled jab at IE was appropriate for / .
yet factually untrue,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the other poster said, Chrome has incognito, IE released private browsing with v.8 and firefox did the same with 3.5.
The browsers today are doing what they can, but when sites require specific tracking to function, the browser is limited in what it can do.
Also, the thinly veiled jab at IE was appropriate for /.
yet factually untrue,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28616525</id>
	<title>Re:I'm completely shocked...</title>
	<author>Valdrax</author>
	<datestamp>1246976100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People now expect government to do everything for them including protection against their own stupidity.</p></div><p>I see that you're under the delusion that it's possible to not be "stupid" about <em>every</em> important transaction you engage in.  Unfortunately, there's simply far, far, <b>far</b> too much information in the real world for <em>any</em> citizen to properly protect themselves in <em>every</em> transaction.  You can't know everything, even in transactions where the seller isn't deliberately hiding information from you, and time is not an infinite resource.</p><p>This is what government is good for.  We need specialists that can drill down and make sure things are safe for those of us who are not experts in an area.</p><p>We need financial regulators because the average person can't understand complex financial products.  We need people to look into drug safety because the average person is not a doctor and wouldn't even know where to look to protect themselves against complications.  We also need food &amp; drug inspectors because people can't inspect factories to see that the products they ingest are safe.  We need people to look into whether businesses are protecting customer's privacy because it takes too much effort to research which companies do and don't.</p><p>We need experts to watch what we can't.  That's not "stupidity."  That's simple specialization of society, as advocated by Adam Smith.  Information assymmetry is a fact of life, and the only way to tackle it is to put someone in charge of watching over things.  Modern society is simply too complex and contradictory for word of mouth to protect against crooked dealers.</p><p>And it does nothing if there's more market advantage to screwing the customers than treating them well.  This is especially the case in a world where the only method of regulating bad players you will accept is...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It would be quite simple to organize boycotts against products and companies that don't give you adequate information.</p></div><p>No, it's not simple.  If it were simple, people would do it all the time, and it would actually be effective.</p><p>In practice, the only boycotts that seem to ever reach any critical mass of attention in the public's mind are religious-based protests, such as those against Disneyworld for "Gay Days," and even then a company that's big enough can simply shrug it off (e.g. Disney).  I mean, how's that whole "let's all boycott Amazon.com over their one-click patent" thing going?  How about boycotting the RIAA?  If enough people don't know, don't care, or don't care enough about a cause not to do business with a company, then there's no market disadvantage to acting like a complete jerk.</p><p>It's even more laughable of an idea in markets where there are only a handful of competitors that all play the game the same way, such as utility companies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People now expect government to do everything for them including protection against their own stupidity.I see that you 're under the delusion that it 's possible to not be " stupid " about every important transaction you engage in .
Unfortunately , there 's simply far , far , far too much information in the real world for any citizen to properly protect themselves in every transaction .
You ca n't know everything , even in transactions where the seller is n't deliberately hiding information from you , and time is not an infinite resource.This is what government is good for .
We need specialists that can drill down and make sure things are safe for those of us who are not experts in an area.We need financial regulators because the average person ca n't understand complex financial products .
We need people to look into drug safety because the average person is not a doctor and would n't even know where to look to protect themselves against complications .
We also need food &amp; drug inspectors because people ca n't inspect factories to see that the products they ingest are safe .
We need people to look into whether businesses are protecting customer 's privacy because it takes too much effort to research which companies do and do n't.We need experts to watch what we ca n't .
That 's not " stupidity .
" That 's simple specialization of society , as advocated by Adam Smith .
Information assymmetry is a fact of life , and the only way to tackle it is to put someone in charge of watching over things .
Modern society is simply too complex and contradictory for word of mouth to protect against crooked dealers.And it does nothing if there 's more market advantage to screwing the customers than treating them well .
This is especially the case in a world where the only method of regulating bad players you will accept is...It would be quite simple to organize boycotts against products and companies that do n't give you adequate information.No , it 's not simple .
If it were simple , people would do it all the time , and it would actually be effective.In practice , the only boycotts that seem to ever reach any critical mass of attention in the public 's mind are religious-based protests , such as those against Disneyworld for " Gay Days , " and even then a company that 's big enough can simply shrug it off ( e.g .
Disney ) . I mean , how 's that whole " let 's all boycott Amazon.com over their one-click patent " thing going ?
How about boycotting the RIAA ?
If enough people do n't know , do n't care , or do n't care enough about a cause not to do business with a company , then there 's no market disadvantage to acting like a complete jerk.It 's even more laughable of an idea in markets where there are only a handful of competitors that all play the game the same way , such as utility companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People now expect government to do everything for them including protection against their own stupidity.I see that you're under the delusion that it's possible to not be "stupid" about every important transaction you engage in.
Unfortunately, there's simply far, far, far too much information in the real world for any citizen to properly protect themselves in every transaction.
You can't know everything, even in transactions where the seller isn't deliberately hiding information from you, and time is not an infinite resource.This is what government is good for.
We need specialists that can drill down and make sure things are safe for those of us who are not experts in an area.We need financial regulators because the average person can't understand complex financial products.
We need people to look into drug safety because the average person is not a doctor and wouldn't even know where to look to protect themselves against complications.
We also need food &amp; drug inspectors because people can't inspect factories to see that the products they ingest are safe.
We need people to look into whether businesses are protecting customer's privacy because it takes too much effort to research which companies do and don't.We need experts to watch what we can't.
That's not "stupidity.
"  That's simple specialization of society, as advocated by Adam Smith.
Information assymmetry is a fact of life, and the only way to tackle it is to put someone in charge of watching over things.
Modern society is simply too complex and contradictory for word of mouth to protect against crooked dealers.And it does nothing if there's more market advantage to screwing the customers than treating them well.
This is especially the case in a world where the only method of regulating bad players you will accept is...It would be quite simple to organize boycotts against products and companies that don't give you adequate information.No, it's not simple.
If it were simple, people would do it all the time, and it would actually be effective.In practice, the only boycotts that seem to ever reach any critical mass of attention in the public's mind are religious-based protests, such as those against Disneyworld for "Gay Days," and even then a company that's big enough can simply shrug it off (e.g.
Disney).  I mean, how's that whole "let's all boycott Amazon.com over their one-click patent" thing going?
How about boycotting the RIAA?
If enough people don't know, don't care, or don't care enough about a cause not to do business with a company, then there's no market disadvantage to acting like a complete jerk.It's even more laughable of an idea in markets where there are only a handful of competitors that all play the game the same way, such as utility companies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612067</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612761</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>SirGarlon</author>
	<datestamp>1246999320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>When it comes to privacy, there are much bigger issues than the pervasive use of tracking cookies.  (For example: indefinite data retention after a customer has stopped doing business with a vendor, sale of customer data without explicit opt-in, and let's not forget the pervasive failure of government agencies to encrypt sensitive data like Social Security numbers.)  Tracking cookies seem quaint and harmless by comparison... this article reminds me of the privacy issues we used to worry about back in 1999.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When it comes to privacy , there are much bigger issues than the pervasive use of tracking cookies .
( For example : indefinite data retention after a customer has stopped doing business with a vendor , sale of customer data without explicit opt-in , and let 's not forget the pervasive failure of government agencies to encrypt sensitive data like Social Security numbers .
) Tracking cookies seem quaint and harmless by comparison... this article reminds me of the privacy issues we used to worry about back in 1999 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it comes to privacy, there are much bigger issues than the pervasive use of tracking cookies.
(For example: indefinite data retention after a customer has stopped doing business with a vendor, sale of customer data without explicit opt-in, and let's not forget the pervasive failure of government agencies to encrypt sensitive data like Social Security numbers.
)  Tracking cookies seem quaint and harmless by comparison... this article reminds me of the privacy issues we used to worry about back in 1999.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613423</id>
	<title>Re:Solution</title>
	<author>CroDragn</author>
	<datestamp>1246958940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a problem with this as being the only real solution.  There are many sites I would like to support, and even by shear chance an ad sometimes that looks interesting.  Both are times I'd like to be able to see that ad and be able to click on it.  However, between ad based malware, tracking, and privacy concerns, NOT blocking them is annoying at best, a serious security concern at worst.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a problem with this as being the only real solution .
There are many sites I would like to support , and even by shear chance an ad sometimes that looks interesting .
Both are times I 'd like to be able to see that ad and be able to click on it .
However , between ad based malware , tracking , and privacy concerns , NOT blocking them is annoying at best , a serious security concern at worst .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a problem with this as being the only real solution.
There are many sites I would like to support, and even by shear chance an ad sometimes that looks interesting.
Both are times I'd like to be able to see that ad and be able to click on it.
However, between ad based malware, tracking, and privacy concerns, NOT blocking them is annoying at best, a serious security concern at worst.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613255</id>
	<title>Re:Solution</title>
	<author>ashtophoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1246958400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you got it all wrong. Your solution works for those that are looking for a <b>real</b> solution while the proposed is one coming from the IAB!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you got it all wrong .
Your solution works for those that are looking for a real solution while the proposed is one coming from the IAB !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you got it all wrong.
Your solution works for those that are looking for a real solution while the proposed is one coming from the IAB!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28618823</id>
	<title>Re:Won't work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247085480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about this: a button on every browser, saying: "report this site as misbehaving". Then, when many people click on said button for a given site, enforce some sanctions, like throttling data to/from the site and/or throttling dns lookup of the site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about this : a button on every browser , saying : " report this site as misbehaving " .
Then , when many people click on said button for a given site , enforce some sanctions , like throttling data to/from the site and/or throttling dns lookup of the site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about this: a button on every browser, saying: "report this site as misbehaving".
Then, when many people click on said button for a given site, enforce some sanctions, like throttling data to/from the site and/or throttling dns lookup of the site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613571</id>
	<title>Re:Valid but not simple?</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1246959480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it is information that should be kept from others, and the company doesn't tell you it has the information, then it sounds like information you don't want them collecting in the first place. It won't be a security problem once the company has to delete said info in order to keep the customer from being scared away in the event that full disclosure becomes required.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is information that should be kept from others , and the company does n't tell you it has the information , then it sounds like information you do n't want them collecting in the first place .
It wo n't be a security problem once the company has to delete said info in order to keep the customer from being scared away in the event that full disclosure becomes required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is information that should be kept from others, and the company doesn't tell you it has the information, then it sounds like information you don't want them collecting in the first place.
It won't be a security problem once the company has to delete said info in order to keep the customer from being scared away in the event that full disclosure becomes required.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612625</id>
	<title>Won't work</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1246998780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> These principles are: every ad should explain itself, users should be able to see data collected about them, browsers should help enforce user choices about tracking, and some information (medical and financial) is simply too sensitive to track.</p> </div><p>

This fails in many aspects. Every ad should explain itself? How are you going to do that on something that takes up 1/6th of a normal computer screen. If you click it for more info, that kinda kills the entire point of the ad to begin with. Users should be able to see the data collected about them? Oh no theres no potential for abuse for this one. Theres no way this can be used to create a very good phishing attack especially if you have physical access to the computer. As for browsers helping enforcing user choices, how do you do that? Have a box where you check "block tracking cookies?" I'm sure theres no potential for abuse for that either. Theres no way that MS or another company will "conveniently" "mislabel" legitimate cookies as tracking cookies. Plus, this can very well lead to a ton of censorship.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These principles are : every ad should explain itself , users should be able to see data collected about them , browsers should help enforce user choices about tracking , and some information ( medical and financial ) is simply too sensitive to track .
This fails in many aspects .
Every ad should explain itself ?
How are you going to do that on something that takes up 1/6th of a normal computer screen .
If you click it for more info , that kinda kills the entire point of the ad to begin with .
Users should be able to see the data collected about them ?
Oh no theres no potential for abuse for this one .
Theres no way this can be used to create a very good phishing attack especially if you have physical access to the computer .
As for browsers helping enforcing user choices , how do you do that ?
Have a box where you check " block tracking cookies ?
" I 'm sure theres no potential for abuse for that either .
Theres no way that MS or another company will " conveniently " " mislabel " legitimate cookies as tracking cookies .
Plus , this can very well lead to a ton of censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> These principles are: every ad should explain itself, users should be able to see data collected about them, browsers should help enforce user choices about tracking, and some information (medical and financial) is simply too sensitive to track.
This fails in many aspects.
Every ad should explain itself?
How are you going to do that on something that takes up 1/6th of a normal computer screen.
If you click it for more info, that kinda kills the entire point of the ad to begin with.
Users should be able to see the data collected about them?
Oh no theres no potential for abuse for this one.
Theres no way this can be used to create a very good phishing attack especially if you have physical access to the computer.
As for browsers helping enforcing user choices, how do you do that?
Have a box where you check "block tracking cookies?
" I'm sure theres no potential for abuse for that either.
Theres no way that MS or another company will "conveniently" "mislabel" legitimate cookies as tracking cookies.
Plus, this can very well lead to a ton of censorship.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612905</id>
	<title>Re:Valid but not simple?</title>
	<author>ashtophoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1247000040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems this suggestion was rejected on the basis that it is technically difficult.
I think one of the real reasons for it being rejected was the loss of competitive advantage it would cause to some companies who are storing certain data that some other companies haven't thought of storing.
<br> <br>
Also, its possible that data is being stored in various ways/stats, for example I may have come up with a single number to represent a user's political preferences (left, right and such) by consolidation of many other 'simple' stats. Disclosing this opens my 'better' algorithm to the rest of the industry.<br> <br>

Secondly, if I show this single number to the users, it would be very hard for me to explain it to them as to what it means.<br> <br>

In a way I may also be disclosing my database schema to the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems this suggestion was rejected on the basis that it is technically difficult .
I think one of the real reasons for it being rejected was the loss of competitive advantage it would cause to some companies who are storing certain data that some other companies have n't thought of storing .
Also , its possible that data is being stored in various ways/stats , for example I may have come up with a single number to represent a user 's political preferences ( left , right and such ) by consolidation of many other 'simple ' stats .
Disclosing this opens my 'better ' algorithm to the rest of the industry .
Secondly , if I show this single number to the users , it would be very hard for me to explain it to them as to what it means .
In a way I may also be disclosing my database schema to the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems this suggestion was rejected on the basis that it is technically difficult.
I think one of the real reasons for it being rejected was the loss of competitive advantage it would cause to some companies who are storing certain data that some other companies haven't thought of storing.
Also, its possible that data is being stored in various ways/stats, for example I may have come up with a single number to represent a user's political preferences (left, right and such) by consolidation of many other 'simple' stats.
Disclosing this opens my 'better' algorithm to the rest of the industry.
Secondly, if I show this single number to the users, it would be very hard for me to explain it to them as to what it means.
In a way I may also be disclosing my database schema to the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612305</id>
	<title>Here's an idea for privacy..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246997580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privacy<br>"privacy (noun) The quality or state of being apart from company or observation."</p><p>They honestly need to stop using the word privacy in these proposals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From http : //www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privacy " privacy ( noun ) The quality or state of being apart from company or observation .
" They honestly need to stop using the word privacy in these proposals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privacy"privacy (noun) The quality or state of being apart from company or observation.
"They honestly need to stop using the word privacy in these proposals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612331</id>
	<title>Valid but not simple?</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1246997700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing that caught my attention in the summary:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>users should be able to see data collected about them</p></div><p>Seems like a very valid sort of thing to want.  If your company has information about me, I should be able to know what information you have.  Common sense, right?
</p><p>On the other hand, if you're going to talk about something like this, don't you also have to talk about other increases in security to go along with the additional transparency?  If you're going to make it increasingly easy for me to see information about me, it should go hand in hand with making it increasingly difficult for someone who is not-me to access that information about me.
</p><p>I really think it's time that we talk about improving our security models.  SSL on everything would be a good start.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing that caught my attention in the summary : users should be able to see data collected about themSeems like a very valid sort of thing to want .
If your company has information about me , I should be able to know what information you have .
Common sense , right ?
On the other hand , if you 're going to talk about something like this , do n't you also have to talk about other increases in security to go along with the additional transparency ?
If you 're going to make it increasingly easy for me to see information about me , it should go hand in hand with making it increasingly difficult for someone who is not-me to access that information about me .
I really think it 's time that we talk about improving our security models .
SSL on everything would be a good start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing that caught my attention in the summary:users should be able to see data collected about themSeems like a very valid sort of thing to want.
If your company has information about me, I should be able to know what information you have.
Common sense, right?
On the other hand, if you're going to talk about something like this, don't you also have to talk about other increases in security to go along with the additional transparency?
If you're going to make it increasingly easy for me to see information about me, it should go hand in hand with making it increasingly difficult for someone who is not-me to access that information about me.
I really think it's time that we talk about improving our security models.
SSL on everything would be a good start.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613523</id>
	<title>Re:Solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246959300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There will always be a few ads that get through.<br>What works best for me is flashblock + adblock plus.</p><p>Flashblock - blocks all flash on a page and you press the play button on the specific one you want to play, if any. This saves massive amounts of cpu time, and not to mention blocks all flash ads.<br>Adblock Plus - blocks a lot of ad images and servers by default. (it blocks servers or images if you want). It even blocks ads on hulu.com, thanks to its ability to block servers (you still have to sit 30 seconds but imho, watching nothing is better then getting brainwashed).<br>There are very few ads that get through flashblock and adblock plus.<br>If all else fails, right click the ad you see in firefox and block it with adblock plus. Nothing more.</p><p>That's how you can surf the internet without ads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There will always be a few ads that get through.What works best for me is flashblock + adblock plus.Flashblock - blocks all flash on a page and you press the play button on the specific one you want to play , if any .
This saves massive amounts of cpu time , and not to mention blocks all flash ads.Adblock Plus - blocks a lot of ad images and servers by default .
( it blocks servers or images if you want ) .
It even blocks ads on hulu.com , thanks to its ability to block servers ( you still have to sit 30 seconds but imho , watching nothing is better then getting brainwashed ) .There are very few ads that get through flashblock and adblock plus.If all else fails , right click the ad you see in firefox and block it with adblock plus .
Nothing more.That 's how you can surf the internet without ads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will always be a few ads that get through.What works best for me is flashblock + adblock plus.Flashblock - blocks all flash on a page and you press the play button on the specific one you want to play, if any.
This saves massive amounts of cpu time, and not to mention blocks all flash ads.Adblock Plus - blocks a lot of ad images and servers by default.
(it blocks servers or images if you want).
It even blocks ads on hulu.com, thanks to its ability to block servers (you still have to sit 30 seconds but imho, watching nothing is better then getting brainwashed).There are very few ads that get through flashblock and adblock plus.If all else fails, right click the ad you see in firefox and block it with adblock plus.
Nothing more.That's how you can surf the internet without ads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612461</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_181256_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28618823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_181256_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_181256_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28611927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_181256_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612905
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_181256_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_181256_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613255
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_181256_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_181256_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28618245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28611927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_181256_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28616525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28611927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_181256_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28611927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_181256_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612597
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28611927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_181256_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612067
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28611927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_181256_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_181256_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_181256_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_181256_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_181256_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_181256.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612761
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_181256.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613523
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_181256.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612179
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_181256.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28618823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613005
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_181256.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612717
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_181256.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613571
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_181256.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_181256.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28611927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612067
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612827
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28616525
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28612597
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28618245
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_181256.28613081
</commentlist>
</conversation>
