<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_07_2331254</id>
	<title>Cellphones Increasingly Used As Evidence In Court</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1246971720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The NY Times reports that the case of Mikhail Mallayev, who was convicted in March of murder after data from his cellphone disproved his alibi, highlights the surge in law enforcement's use of increasingly sophisticated cellular tracking techniques to keep tabs on suspects before they are arrested and build criminal cases against them by mapping their past movements. But cellphone tracking is raising concerns about civil liberties in a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/nyregion/06cellphone.html">debate that pits public safety against privacy rights</a>. Investigators seeking warrants must provide a judge with probable cause that a crime has been committed, but investigators often obtain cell-tracking records under lower standards of judicial review &mdash; through subpoenas, which are granted routinely, or through an intermediate type of court order based on an argument that the information requested would be relevant to an investigation. 'Cell phone providers store an increasing amount of sensitive data about where you are and when, based on which cell towers your phone uses when making a call. Until now, the government has routinely seized these records without search warrants,' said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. Last year the Federal District Court in Pittsburgh ruled that a <a href="http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/09/11">search warrant is required even for historical phone location records</a>, but the Justice Department has appealed the ruling. 'The cost of carrying a cellphone should not include the loss of one's personal privacy,' said Catherine Crump, a lawyer for the ACLU."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The NY Times reports that the case of Mikhail Mallayev , who was convicted in March of murder after data from his cellphone disproved his alibi , highlights the surge in law enforcement 's use of increasingly sophisticated cellular tracking techniques to keep tabs on suspects before they are arrested and build criminal cases against them by mapping their past movements .
But cellphone tracking is raising concerns about civil liberties in a debate that pits public safety against privacy rights .
Investigators seeking warrants must provide a judge with probable cause that a crime has been committed , but investigators often obtain cell-tracking records under lower standards of judicial review    through subpoenas , which are granted routinely , or through an intermediate type of court order based on an argument that the information requested would be relevant to an investigation .
'Cell phone providers store an increasing amount of sensitive data about where you are and when , based on which cell towers your phone uses when making a call .
Until now , the government has routinely seized these records without search warrants, ' said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston .
Last year the Federal District Court in Pittsburgh ruled that a search warrant is required even for historical phone location records , but the Justice Department has appealed the ruling .
'The cost of carrying a cellphone should not include the loss of one 's personal privacy, ' said Catherine Crump , a lawyer for the ACLU .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that the case of Mikhail Mallayev, who was convicted in March of murder after data from his cellphone disproved his alibi, highlights the surge in law enforcement's use of increasingly sophisticated cellular tracking techniques to keep tabs on suspects before they are arrested and build criminal cases against them by mapping their past movements.
But cellphone tracking is raising concerns about civil liberties in a debate that pits public safety against privacy rights.
Investigators seeking warrants must provide a judge with probable cause that a crime has been committed, but investigators often obtain cell-tracking records under lower standards of judicial review — through subpoenas, which are granted routinely, or through an intermediate type of court order based on an argument that the information requested would be relevant to an investigation.
'Cell phone providers store an increasing amount of sensitive data about where you are and when, based on which cell towers your phone uses when making a call.
Until now, the government has routinely seized these records without search warrants,' said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston.
Last year the Federal District Court in Pittsburgh ruled that a search warrant is required even for historical phone location records, but the Justice Department has appealed the ruling.
'The cost of carrying a cellphone should not include the loss of one's personal privacy,' said Catherine Crump, a lawyer for the ACLU.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622647</id>
	<title>Re:A question that needs answering in these cases.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247069340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its not a 100\% guilty type of thing but its human nature,  You might leave the house without your cellphone, or trade with your wife but I think its pretty safe to say almost all people never leave the house, even the car without their cell phone.  If you say "i didnt have my phone with me at the time"  then you need to come up with who did have your phone..  who will vouch for you and take a chance at being a suspect?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its not a 100 \ % guilty type of thing but its human nature , You might leave the house without your cellphone , or trade with your wife but I think its pretty safe to say almost all people never leave the house , even the car without their cell phone .
If you say " i didnt have my phone with me at the time " then you need to come up with who did have your phone.. who will vouch for you and take a chance at being a suspect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its not a 100\% guilty type of thing but its human nature,  You might leave the house without your cellphone, or trade with your wife but I think its pretty safe to say almost all people never leave the house, even the car without their cell phone.
If you say "i didnt have my phone with me at the time"  then you need to come up with who did have your phone..  who will vouch for you and take a chance at being a suspect?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28687643</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247604840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Carrying a cellphone isn't displaying any expectation of privacy. By having it, you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you. </i> </p><p>You are so fucked up I hardly know where to start.</p><p>Where in my contract does it say that I expect to be carrying a personal homing beacon on me? Don't try the "as required by law enforcement" bullshit, because that is to be done explicitly under court-issued warrant.</p><p>This is just a  further example of telcos getting cozy with cops. Once the practice is started, even illegally, it can be pointed to in the future as "an important crime-fighting tool".</p><p>Whenever uttered, those words are intended to terminate debate immediately -- no further chance at argument or even analysis. If just one baby rapist gets caught using such methods, the doors are wide open. Sooner or later, everyone gets the GPS implant "so we can rule you out". Horseshit -- the fucking cops don't want anyone "ruled out" -- they want as many people as possible "ruled in" so they can investigate everyone, looking for the slightest inconsistency as a "tool" to extort maximum compliance with their fucking "protocols", no matter the consequences to any individual. The slightest inconsistency in any statement allows them to start throwing around threats of "interfering with an officer", "interfering with an ongoing investigation" or "filing a false report".</p><p>In case you think I'm kidding, I once saw on the news an incident where some cops started asking some guy where one of his sons was. (Granted, if you saw this guy and his other son, you'd be disinclined to get into an argument with them. However, that in no way mitigates the police obligation to presume innocence.)</p><p>Essentially all the guy said was, "I don't know."Immediately the pigs started ticking off their list of offenses at the guy. They old him that, if they later found out he was lying to them, they'd nail his ass on -- 1.) filing a false report; 2.) obstructing justice; and 3.) harboring a fugitive. Each of these offenses could lead to seven years in jail, served consecutively. Holy Jesus Christ in Heaven -- these needle-dicked bugfuckers were threatening to jack the guy for twenty-one years for three words.</p><p>And you wonder why people hate the jack-booted shitbirds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Carrying a cellphone is n't displaying any expectation of privacy .
By having it , you 're explicitly granting permission for people to find you .
You are so fucked up I hardly know where to start.Where in my contract does it say that I expect to be carrying a personal homing beacon on me ?
Do n't try the " as required by law enforcement " bullshit , because that is to be done explicitly under court-issued warrant.This is just a further example of telcos getting cozy with cops .
Once the practice is started , even illegally , it can be pointed to in the future as " an important crime-fighting tool " .Whenever uttered , those words are intended to terminate debate immediately -- no further chance at argument or even analysis .
If just one baby rapist gets caught using such methods , the doors are wide open .
Sooner or later , everyone gets the GPS implant " so we can rule you out " .
Horseshit -- the fucking cops do n't want anyone " ruled out " -- they want as many people as possible " ruled in " so they can investigate everyone , looking for the slightest inconsistency as a " tool " to extort maximum compliance with their fucking " protocols " , no matter the consequences to any individual .
The slightest inconsistency in any statement allows them to start throwing around threats of " interfering with an officer " , " interfering with an ongoing investigation " or " filing a false report " .In case you think I 'm kidding , I once saw on the news an incident where some cops started asking some guy where one of his sons was .
( Granted , if you saw this guy and his other son , you 'd be disinclined to get into an argument with them .
However , that in no way mitigates the police obligation to presume innocence .
) Essentially all the guy said was , " I do n't know .
" Immediately the pigs started ticking off their list of offenses at the guy .
They old him that , if they later found out he was lying to them , they 'd nail his ass on -- 1 .
) filing a false report ; 2 .
) obstructing justice ; and 3 .
) harboring a fugitive .
Each of these offenses could lead to seven years in jail , served consecutively .
Holy Jesus Christ in Heaven -- these needle-dicked bugfuckers were threatening to jack the guy for twenty-one years for three words.And you wonder why people hate the jack-booted shitbirds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carrying a cellphone isn't displaying any expectation of privacy.
By having it, you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you.
You are so fucked up I hardly know where to start.Where in my contract does it say that I expect to be carrying a personal homing beacon on me?
Don't try the "as required by law enforcement" bullshit, because that is to be done explicitly under court-issued warrant.This is just a  further example of telcos getting cozy with cops.
Once the practice is started, even illegally, it can be pointed to in the future as "an important crime-fighting tool".Whenever uttered, those words are intended to terminate debate immediately -- no further chance at argument or even analysis.
If just one baby rapist gets caught using such methods, the doors are wide open.
Sooner or later, everyone gets the GPS implant "so we can rule you out".
Horseshit -- the fucking cops don't want anyone "ruled out" -- they want as many people as possible "ruled in" so they can investigate everyone, looking for the slightest inconsistency as a "tool" to extort maximum compliance with their fucking "protocols", no matter the consequences to any individual.
The slightest inconsistency in any statement allows them to start throwing around threats of "interfering with an officer", "interfering with an ongoing investigation" or "filing a false report".In case you think I'm kidding, I once saw on the news an incident where some cops started asking some guy where one of his sons was.
(Granted, if you saw this guy and his other son, you'd be disinclined to get into an argument with them.
However, that in no way mitigates the police obligation to presume innocence.
)Essentially all the guy said was, "I don't know.
"Immediately the pigs started ticking off their list of offenses at the guy.
They old him that, if they later found out he was lying to them, they'd nail his ass on -- 1.
) filing a false report; 2.
) obstructing justice; and 3.
) harboring a fugitive.
Each of these offenses could lead to seven years in jail, served consecutively.
Holy Jesus Christ in Heaven -- these needle-dicked bugfuckers were threatening to jack the guy for twenty-one years for three words.And you wonder why people hate the jack-booted shitbirds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621799</id>
	<title>Re:Alibi's?</title>
	<author>delt0r</author>
	<datestamp>1247066400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its a known fact that most criminals that are caught are stupid. If that's because criminals are stupid or that cops can only catch stupid criminals is an interesting question.  Even more interesting is that if cops can only catch stupid criminals, does that make cops stupid...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its a known fact that most criminals that are caught are stupid .
If that 's because criminals are stupid or that cops can only catch stupid criminals is an interesting question .
Even more interesting is that if cops can only catch stupid criminals , does that make cops stupid.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its a known fact that most criminals that are caught are stupid.
If that's because criminals are stupid or that cops can only catch stupid criminals is an interesting question.
Even more interesting is that if cops can only catch stupid criminals, does that make cops stupid...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621831</id>
	<title>Previous planning prevents piss poor performance</title>
	<author>proslack</author>
	<datestamp>1247066520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The lesson here is to hide your phone behind a book at the library before you go off on a crime spree, then fetch it upon completion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The lesson here is to hide your phone behind a book at the library before you go off on a crime spree , then fetch it upon completion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lesson here is to hide your phone behind a book at the library before you go off on a crime spree, then fetch it upon completion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621703</id>
	<title>Make cellphones mandatory?</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1247066040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Governments love tracking tech. Unfortunately the idea of spying on citizens &lt;irony&gt; provokes a few "idealists" to object on the basis of "liberties" &lt;/irony&gt; (as if we ever had any?)
<p>
However mobile phones are merely "technology", not people. So the ability to track them is a much easier sell - especially as it wouldn't involve the people at all, just some computers 'n' stuff.It seems to me that all a government has to do is make tha carrying of a mobile phone an obligation for citizens, visitors and the like. Getting rid of anonymous phones would also be part of the deal, but in many places they're already gone or on the way out.
</p><p>
What happens next is that people have been issued with de-facto ID cards. Ones that can be accessed passively without the owner's knowledge or permission. Yes you could turn it off, but people are so addicted to them, and so afraid of missing "that" call (we know this: almost everyone will stop doing *anything* to answer a call when the phone rings - they just can't ignore it or let it ring). amd so insecure, that hardly anyone would. It might even become socially unacceptable - like smoking in public, or travelling naked.
Even better, the cost to the government is much lower than for an ID card scheme, and once everyone has one, all the time, they can be used for issuing summones, texting out tax demands, traffic tickets and almost anything else that a government or official body would need to send to it's citizens.
</p><p>
Presumably the next step would be to have them implanted at birth?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Governments love tracking tech .
Unfortunately the idea of spying on citizens provokes a few " idealists " to object on the basis of " liberties " ( as if we ever had any ?
) However mobile phones are merely " technology " , not people .
So the ability to track them is a much easier sell - especially as it would n't involve the people at all , just some computers 'n ' stuff.It seems to me that all a government has to do is make tha carrying of a mobile phone an obligation for citizens , visitors and the like .
Getting rid of anonymous phones would also be part of the deal , but in many places they 're already gone or on the way out .
What happens next is that people have been issued with de-facto ID cards .
Ones that can be accessed passively without the owner 's knowledge or permission .
Yes you could turn it off , but people are so addicted to them , and so afraid of missing " that " call ( we know this : almost everyone will stop doing * anything * to answer a call when the phone rings - they just ca n't ignore it or let it ring ) .
amd so insecure , that hardly anyone would .
It might even become socially unacceptable - like smoking in public , or travelling naked .
Even better , the cost to the government is much lower than for an ID card scheme , and once everyone has one , all the time , they can be used for issuing summones , texting out tax demands , traffic tickets and almost anything else that a government or official body would need to send to it 's citizens .
Presumably the next step would be to have them implanted at birth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Governments love tracking tech.
Unfortunately the idea of spying on citizens  provokes a few "idealists" to object on the basis of "liberties"  (as if we ever had any?
)

However mobile phones are merely "technology", not people.
So the ability to track them is a much easier sell - especially as it wouldn't involve the people at all, just some computers 'n' stuff.It seems to me that all a government has to do is make tha carrying of a mobile phone an obligation for citizens, visitors and the like.
Getting rid of anonymous phones would also be part of the deal, but in many places they're already gone or on the way out.
What happens next is that people have been issued with de-facto ID cards.
Ones that can be accessed passively without the owner's knowledge or permission.
Yes you could turn it off, but people are so addicted to them, and so afraid of missing "that" call (we know this: almost everyone will stop doing *anything* to answer a call when the phone rings - they just can't ignore it or let it ring).
amd so insecure, that hardly anyone would.
It might even become socially unacceptable - like smoking in public, or travelling naked.
Even better, the cost to the government is much lower than for an ID card scheme, and once everyone has one, all the time, they can be used for issuing summones, texting out tax demands, traffic tickets and almost anything else that a government or official body would need to send to it's citizens.
Presumably the next step would be to have them implanted at birth?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621053</id>
	<title>Re:Alibi's?</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1247063760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now that we are aware of the increasing use by law enforcement of cell phone records, won't criminal simply setup their cell phones at some alibi spot, go off and commit the crime and use the records as support for that alibi?</p></div></blockquote><p>
No, because most criminals aren't that intelligent or thoughtful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that we are aware of the increasing use by law enforcement of cell phone records , wo n't criminal simply setup their cell phones at some alibi spot , go off and commit the crime and use the records as support for that alibi ?
No , because most criminals are n't that intelligent or thoughtful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that we are aware of the increasing use by law enforcement of cell phone records, won't criminal simply setup their cell phones at some alibi spot, go off and commit the crime and use the records as support for that alibi?
No, because most criminals aren't that intelligent or thoughtful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622725</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>Qzukk</author>
	<datestamp>1247069640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>expectation of privacy</i></p><p>You and the government keep using those words.  I do not think it means what you think it means, and Scalia's <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/05/googling\_justic.html" title="schneier.com">shitfit</a> [schneier.com] proves it.</p><p>Also, I suspect that the majority of the public do not realize that they can be tracked by their cellphone, so they clearly not "explicitly granting" any such thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>expectation of privacyYou and the government keep using those words .
I do not think it means what you think it means , and Scalia 's shitfit [ schneier.com ] proves it.Also , I suspect that the majority of the public do not realize that they can be tracked by their cellphone , so they clearly not " explicitly granting " any such thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>expectation of privacyYou and the government keep using those words.
I do not think it means what you think it means, and Scalia's shitfit [schneier.com] proves it.Also, I suspect that the majority of the public do not realize that they can be tracked by their cellphone, so they clearly not "explicitly granting" any such thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620681</id>
	<title>Sounds like a good idea...</title>
	<author>Nikkos</author>
	<datestamp>1247062440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, the next time I'm going to commit murder I'm going to bring my own GPS-tracker with me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the next time I 'm going to commit murder I 'm going to bring my own GPS-tracker with me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the next time I'm going to commit murder I'm going to bring my own GPS-tracker with me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623769</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1247073420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  Most people do not carry a cell phone expecting their location to be known by anyone else.  Most people would not turn on a 'track me 24/7' feature if their cell phone had one, even if it had a privacy guarantee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Most people do not carry a cell phone expecting their location to be known by anyone else .
Most people would not turn on a 'track me 24/7 ' feature if their cell phone had one , even if it had a privacy guarantee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Most people do not carry a cell phone expecting their location to be known by anyone else.
Most people would not turn on a 'track me 24/7' feature if their cell phone had one, even if it had a privacy guarantee.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621189</id>
	<title>privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247064120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>this article reminds of of a movie i recently watched:
a woman calls the russian embassy from her mobile phone and her first words are: "Are we on a secure line?"

but it was kind of disturbing being the only one in the cinema laughing about that...</htmltext>
<tokenext>this article reminds of of a movie i recently watched : a woman calls the russian embassy from her mobile phone and her first words are : " Are we on a secure line ?
" but it was kind of disturbing being the only one in the cinema laughing about that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this article reminds of of a movie i recently watched:
a woman calls the russian embassy from her mobile phone and her first words are: "Are we on a secure line?
"

but it was kind of disturbing being the only one in the cinema laughing about that...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622089</id>
	<title>Amateurs!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247067480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><ol>
<li>Go to a bank where you have an account.</li><li>Withdraw $200. Ask specifically to get it as four $50 bills</li><li>Go to McDonalds. Buy something. Pay with $50 bill #1</li><li>Go to a different fast food place. Buy something small. Pay with $50 bill #2</li><li>Go to a gas station and get $5 of gas. Pay with $50 bill #3</li><li>Go to Wal-Mart. Buy a small bottle of clorox bleach. Pay with $50 bill #4</li><li>Wait. Keep the rest of the cash.</li><li>Next time you're out of town on vacation, use cash to purchase two pre-paid cell phones.</li><li>Return home and use phones to plan and commit felonies</li><li>After you realize how stupid you are and that the feds were watching you the whole time and the second you used that phone, they were able to get the number off a tower and are already up on a wire monitoring everything you're doing and you're going to PMITA prison for a long time anyway even though you thought you were so clever, drink clorox.</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go to a bank where you have an account.Withdraw $ 200 .
Ask specifically to get it as four $ 50 billsGo to McDonalds .
Buy something .
Pay with $ 50 bill # 1Go to a different fast food place .
Buy something small .
Pay with $ 50 bill # 2Go to a gas station and get $ 5 of gas .
Pay with $ 50 bill # 3Go to Wal-Mart .
Buy a small bottle of clorox bleach .
Pay with $ 50 bill # 4Wait .
Keep the rest of the cash.Next time you 're out of town on vacation , use cash to purchase two pre-paid cell phones.Return home and use phones to plan and commit feloniesAfter you realize how stupid you are and that the feds were watching you the whole time and the second you used that phone , they were able to get the number off a tower and are already up on a wire monitoring everything you 're doing and you 're going to PMITA prison for a long time anyway even though you thought you were so clever , drink clorox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Go to a bank where you have an account.Withdraw $200.
Ask specifically to get it as four $50 billsGo to McDonalds.
Buy something.
Pay with $50 bill #1Go to a different fast food place.
Buy something small.
Pay with $50 bill #2Go to a gas station and get $5 of gas.
Pay with $50 bill #3Go to Wal-Mart.
Buy a small bottle of clorox bleach.
Pay with $50 bill #4Wait.
Keep the rest of the cash.Next time you're out of town on vacation, use cash to purchase two pre-paid cell phones.Return home and use phones to plan and commit feloniesAfter you realize how stupid you are and that the feds were watching you the whole time and the second you used that phone, they were able to get the number off a tower and are already up on a wire monitoring everything you're doing and you're going to PMITA prison for a long time anyway even though you thought you were so clever, drink clorox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621301</id>
	<title>Re:Too easy to spoof</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1247064420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; I find this reminiscent of the RIAA's arguments, where they show that infringement took place from an IP, but they cannot show who was sitting at the computer. Who can prove who was carrying a cell phone?</p><p>preponderance of evidence</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; I find this reminiscent of the RIAA 's arguments , where they show that infringement took place from an IP , but they can not show who was sitting at the computer .
Who can prove who was carrying a cell phone ? preponderance of evidence</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; I find this reminiscent of the RIAA's arguments, where they show that infringement took place from an IP, but they cannot show who was sitting at the computer.
Who can prove who was carrying a cell phone?preponderance of evidence</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622679</id>
	<title>Re:Alibi's?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247069460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The burden of proof in a criminal case is much higher than a civil case (the ones the RIAA is fond of). Because one means you could go to prison, lose your job, and way of life, the other just means you'll lose some money and probably be a little uncomfortable, temporarily.</p><p>If you consider million dollar fines for downloading a few mp3 files 'some money' and 'a little uncomfortable', people in the USA must be much richer than tv has led me to believe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The burden of proof in a criminal case is much higher than a civil case ( the ones the RIAA is fond of ) .
Because one means you could go to prison , lose your job , and way of life , the other just means you 'll lose some money and probably be a little uncomfortable , temporarily.If you consider million dollar fines for downloading a few mp3 files 'some money ' and 'a little uncomfortable ' , people in the USA must be much richer than tv has led me to believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The burden of proof in a criminal case is much higher than a civil case (the ones the RIAA is fond of).
Because one means you could go to prison, lose your job, and way of life, the other just means you'll lose some money and probably be a little uncomfortable, temporarily.If you consider million dollar fines for downloading a few mp3 files 'some money' and 'a little uncomfortable', people in the USA must be much richer than tv has led me to believe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621047</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621721</id>
	<title>Re:Too easy to spoof</title>
	<author>sonnejw0</author>
	<datestamp>1247066100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you made a phone call bracketing the crime and people confess that the calls were you, there's no reasonable doubt, depending on the time frame, that someone stole your phone and then gave it back to you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you made a phone call bracketing the crime and people confess that the calls were you , there 's no reasonable doubt , depending on the time frame , that someone stole your phone and then gave it back to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you made a phone call bracketing the crime and people confess that the calls were you, there's no reasonable doubt, depending on the time frame, that someone stole your phone and then gave it back to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28631503</id>
	<title>Tangential humorous recollection:</title>
	<author>Accordion Noir</author>
	<datestamp>1247066940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not like it's really relevant, but in court I once saw a man approach the judge and set his cell-phone down in front of himself on the stand.  Then while answering the questions the judge asked, he said he didn't have an address or phone number!</p><p>I've always been curious what the judge would have said had they noticed the phone sitting there in front of the guy.  But I was either not a snitch, or next in line and too nervous to say anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not like it 's really relevant , but in court I once saw a man approach the judge and set his cell-phone down in front of himself on the stand .
Then while answering the questions the judge asked , he said he did n't have an address or phone number ! I 've always been curious what the judge would have said had they noticed the phone sitting there in front of the guy .
But I was either not a snitch , or next in line and too nervous to say anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not like it's really relevant, but in court I once saw a man approach the judge and set his cell-phone down in front of himself on the stand.
Then while answering the questions the judge asked, he said he didn't have an address or phone number!I've always been curious what the judge would have said had they noticed the phone sitting there in front of the guy.
But I was either not a snitch, or next in line and too nervous to say anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623989</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1247074260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Carrying a cellphone isn't displaying any expectation of privacy. By having it, you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you. "</i> <p>
Actually, I believe you are explicityly granting permission for people to <b>contact</b> you. There is a difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Carrying a cellphone is n't displaying any expectation of privacy .
By having it , you 're explicitly granting permission for people to find you .
" Actually , I believe you are explicityly granting permission for people to contact you .
There is a difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Carrying a cellphone isn't displaying any expectation of privacy.
By having it, you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you.
" 
Actually, I believe you are explicityly granting permission for people to contact you.
There is a difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621211</id>
	<title>Re:Alibi's?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247064120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can use any kind of evidence used by the police to lay down false tracks. Want to kill someone when you have to wait for him? Gather some cigarette stubs from someone who equally hates that person and litter them in a bush next to your target's house. You're into rape? Start collecting used condoms. It's admittedly a wee bit harder with fingerprints, but DNA proof opened up a whole new road when you're carefully planning your crime. Most people don't care where they leave their DNA, from hair to chewing gum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can use any kind of evidence used by the police to lay down false tracks .
Want to kill someone when you have to wait for him ?
Gather some cigarette stubs from someone who equally hates that person and litter them in a bush next to your target 's house .
You 're into rape ?
Start collecting used condoms .
It 's admittedly a wee bit harder with fingerprints , but DNA proof opened up a whole new road when you 're carefully planning your crime .
Most people do n't care where they leave their DNA , from hair to chewing gum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can use any kind of evidence used by the police to lay down false tracks.
Want to kill someone when you have to wait for him?
Gather some cigarette stubs from someone who equally hates that person and litter them in a bush next to your target's house.
You're into rape?
Start collecting used condoms.
It's admittedly a wee bit harder with fingerprints, but DNA proof opened up a whole new road when you're carefully planning your crime.
Most people don't care where they leave their DNA, from hair to chewing gum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28627639</id>
	<title>Re:What the hell?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247044140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>Investigator</b>: We traced your mobile phone signal to the location of the murder. Can you explain that?<br>
&nbsp; <b>Suspect</b>: My phone was stolen not long before the incident, actually. I was making a call in the town, which probably also comes up on the log you have, when a guy snapped it from my hands. I hadn't reported it yet. Say, you don't think this mugger would have also tried to harm someone else to get their belongings, do you? I mean, someone less pansy than me who might have put up a fight?</p></div><p> <b>Investigator</b>: And all the long calls from the phone since then to your girlfriend and your mom?  That was the mugger commiserating with them at length about what a pansy you are?  They must have hit it off, because they each called him back six times over the next week.</p><p><b>Suspect</b>: Er.</p><p>.</p><p>The legal concept at play here is 'presumption'.  Presumptions are rebuttable, but the burden shifts to you to explain why the phone record is not reliable evidence of your whereabouts.  Its really no different from a discovery that a gun registered to you was involved in a crime.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Investigator : We traced your mobile phone signal to the location of the murder .
Can you explain that ?
  Suspect : My phone was stolen not long before the incident , actually .
I was making a call in the town , which probably also comes up on the log you have , when a guy snapped it from my hands .
I had n't reported it yet .
Say , you do n't think this mugger would have also tried to harm someone else to get their belongings , do you ?
I mean , someone less pansy than me who might have put up a fight ?
Investigator : And all the long calls from the phone since then to your girlfriend and your mom ?
That was the mugger commiserating with them at length about what a pansy you are ?
They must have hit it off , because they each called him back six times over the next week.Suspect : Er..The legal concept at play here is 'presumption' .
Presumptions are rebuttable , but the burden shifts to you to explain why the phone record is not reliable evidence of your whereabouts .
Its really no different from a discovery that a gun registered to you was involved in a crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Investigator: We traced your mobile phone signal to the location of the murder.
Can you explain that?
  Suspect: My phone was stolen not long before the incident, actually.
I was making a call in the town, which probably also comes up on the log you have, when a guy snapped it from my hands.
I hadn't reported it yet.
Say, you don't think this mugger would have also tried to harm someone else to get their belongings, do you?
I mean, someone less pansy than me who might have put up a fight?
Investigator: And all the long calls from the phone since then to your girlfriend and your mom?
That was the mugger commiserating with them at length about what a pansy you are?
They must have hit it off, because they each called him back six times over the next week.Suspect: Er..The legal concept at play here is 'presumption'.
Presumptions are rebuttable, but the burden shifts to you to explain why the phone record is not reliable evidence of your whereabouts.
Its really no different from a discovery that a gun registered to you was involved in a crime.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623941</id>
	<title>Re:It is worth saying again</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1247074020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The march of technology can be slowed, but not stopped. Eventually this will give us a world without theft.</p> </div><p>Hahahahaha.  How naive.  There will always be theft, the perpetrators will just change their methods in response to changes in technology, it is a never-ending arms race.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The march of technology can be slowed , but not stopped .
Eventually this will give us a world without theft .
Hahahahaha. How naive .
There will always be theft , the perpetrators will just change their methods in response to changes in technology , it is a never-ending arms race .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The march of technology can be slowed, but not stopped.
Eventually this will give us a world without theft.
Hahahahaha.  How naive.
There will always be theft, the perpetrators will just change their methods in response to changes in technology, it is a never-ending arms race.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28624075</id>
	<title>Re:It is worth saying again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247074560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Real slashdotters know privacy isn't doomed. There will always be people hacking for privacy. : P and we are definately smarter than those who hack to eliminate privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Real slashdotters know privacy is n't doomed .
There will always be people hacking for privacy .
: P and we are definately smarter than those who hack to eliminate privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real slashdotters know privacy isn't doomed.
There will always be people hacking for privacy.
: P and we are definately smarter than those who hack to eliminate privacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621013</id>
	<title>Re:Alibi's?</title>
	<author>grasshoppa</author>
	<datestamp>1247063580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cell phone position alone could not crack an alibi.  However, if the suspect made a phone call from his cell during the same time period as the crime, that could very well break their alibi.</p><p>See, if it were just the cell phone position, it could be argued that the suspect didn't have it on their person at the time.  It would be useless in court.  Tie their cell phone to their voice at the approximate time of the crime, however, and you have a whole new set of evidence to play with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cell phone position alone could not crack an alibi .
However , if the suspect made a phone call from his cell during the same time period as the crime , that could very well break their alibi.See , if it were just the cell phone position , it could be argued that the suspect did n't have it on their person at the time .
It would be useless in court .
Tie their cell phone to their voice at the approximate time of the crime , however , and you have a whole new set of evidence to play with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cell phone position alone could not crack an alibi.
However, if the suspect made a phone call from his cell during the same time period as the crime, that could very well break their alibi.See, if it were just the cell phone position, it could be argued that the suspect didn't have it on their person at the time.
It would be useless in court.
Tie their cell phone to their voice at the approximate time of the crime, however, and you have a whole new set of evidence to play with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620581</id>
	<title>Alibi's?</title>
	<author>jrmcc</author>
	<datestamp>1247062020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now that we are aware of the increasing use by law enforcement of cell phone records, won't criminal simply setup their cell phones at some alibi spot, go off and commit the crime and use the records as support for that alibi?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that we are aware of the increasing use by law enforcement of cell phone records , wo n't criminal simply setup their cell phones at some alibi spot , go off and commit the crime and use the records as support for that alibi ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that we are aware of the increasing use by law enforcement of cell phone records, won't criminal simply setup their cell phones at some alibi spot, go off and commit the crime and use the records as support for that alibi?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559</id>
	<title>"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1247061960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Carrying a cellphone isn't displaying any expectation of privacy.  By having it, you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Carrying a cellphone is n't displaying any expectation of privacy .
By having it , you 're explicitly granting permission for people to find you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Carrying a cellphone isn't displaying any expectation of privacy.
By having it, you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28683263</id>
	<title>Re:Location doesn't prove much for us...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247482320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in their mom's basement</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in their mom 's basement</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in their mom's basement</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622677</id>
	<title>So why can't they find my lost phone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247069460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd bet even if they do, they wouldn't tell you. After all, this way they can sell you a new one and maybe even extend their ownership, of your phone number, for yet another three years<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd bet even if they do , they would n't tell you .
After all , this way they can sell you a new one and maybe even extend their ownership , of your phone number , for yet another three years .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd bet even if they do, they wouldn't tell you.
After all, this way they can sell you a new one and maybe even extend their ownership, of your phone number, for yet another three years ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622713</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>jeepien</author>
	<datestamp>1247069580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
By having [a cellphone], you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you.
</p></div><p>No, I'm explicitly granting permission for people to signal me, indicating that they want to speak to me.

I'm not giving them permission to speak to me until I answer the phone, and I'm not giving them permission to know where I am unless I tell them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By having [ a cellphone ] , you 're explicitly granting permission for people to find you .
No , I 'm explicitly granting permission for people to signal me , indicating that they want to speak to me .
I 'm not giving them permission to speak to me until I answer the phone , and I 'm not giving them permission to know where I am unless I tell them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
By having [a cellphone], you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you.
No, I'm explicitly granting permission for people to signal me, indicating that they want to speak to me.
I'm not giving them permission to speak to me until I answer the phone, and I'm not giving them permission to know where I am unless I tell them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621135</id>
	<title>Re:A question that needs answering in these cases.</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1247064000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could also clone their phone before the crime.  Then you only have to jam their original phone.
<br> <br>
Anyway, people have been convicted and executed on shakier evidence than phone records.  All the prosecutor has to do is convince the jury that you had the phone on you, and you'll be convicted.  Remember, the DA just has to <b>convince</b>, he doesn't have to <b>prove.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could also clone their phone before the crime .
Then you only have to jam their original phone .
Anyway , people have been convicted and executed on shakier evidence than phone records .
All the prosecutor has to do is convince the jury that you had the phone on you , and you 'll be convicted .
Remember , the DA just has to convince , he does n't have to prove .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could also clone their phone before the crime.
Then you only have to jam their original phone.
Anyway, people have been convicted and executed on shakier evidence than phone records.
All the prosecutor has to do is convince the jury that you had the phone on you, and you'll be convicted.
Remember, the DA just has to convince, he doesn't have to prove.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28654509</id>
	<title>Re:2 options</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247217840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about
3. Happen to walk past a building where a crime was being committed, then being accused of that crime by virtue of legally owning a cellphone.
?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about 3 .
Happen to walk past a building where a crime was being committed , then being accused of that crime by virtue of legally owning a cellphone .
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about
3.
Happen to walk past a building where a crime was being committed, then being accused of that crime by virtue of legally owning a cellphone.
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28624919</id>
	<title>Re:Location doesn't prove much for us...</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1247077380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which is precisely why people will borrow our cellphones to commit murder!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is precisely why people will borrow our cellphones to commit murder !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is precisely why people will borrow our cellphones to commit murder!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622009</id>
	<title>one cell phone company</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247067240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for a cell phone carrier. We are able to, and are asked to do so with regularity, triangulate the position of a cell phone based on signal strength to multiple towers. We do NOT require a warrant, subpoena or anything of the sort. What we have is a Microsoft Word document, sitting on a fileshare accessible to ?all? employees, containing a list of law enforcement districts and passwords. Every city/county/agency has an authorized contact person with a unique password. So Mr. 'Claims-to-be' Smith from the city of Ispyu calls up and says I want to know where this person is right now, my password is abc123, and they're told where the phone is at.</p><p>The article tells me this isn't unique to my company and is widespread across the cell phone industry. The article DIDN'T speak of the lol authentication mechanism though, so now you know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a cell phone carrier .
We are able to , and are asked to do so with regularity , triangulate the position of a cell phone based on signal strength to multiple towers .
We do NOT require a warrant , subpoena or anything of the sort .
What we have is a Microsoft Word document , sitting on a fileshare accessible to ? all ?
employees , containing a list of law enforcement districts and passwords .
Every city/county/agency has an authorized contact person with a unique password .
So Mr. 'Claims-to-be ' Smith from the city of Ispyu calls up and says I want to know where this person is right now , my password is abc123 , and they 're told where the phone is at.The article tells me this is n't unique to my company and is widespread across the cell phone industry .
The article DID N'T speak of the lol authentication mechanism though , so now you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a cell phone carrier.
We are able to, and are asked to do so with regularity, triangulate the position of a cell phone based on signal strength to multiple towers.
We do NOT require a warrant, subpoena or anything of the sort.
What we have is a Microsoft Word document, sitting on a fileshare accessible to ?all?
employees, containing a list of law enforcement districts and passwords.
Every city/county/agency has an authorized contact person with a unique password.
So Mr. 'Claims-to-be' Smith from the city of Ispyu calls up and says I want to know where this person is right now, my password is abc123, and they're told where the phone is at.The article tells me this isn't unique to my company and is widespread across the cell phone industry.
The article DIDN'T speak of the lol authentication mechanism though, so now you know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621093</id>
	<title>It is worth saying again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247063880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Privacy is doomed.  The march of technology can be slowed, but not stopped.  Eventually this will give us a world without theft.  The trick is keep it from also giving us a world without fun.  That means getting rid of most of our laws, not just nibbling around the edges trying to make it hard to enforce them.  <p> No, I don't know how to achieve that goal, short of re-wiring some brains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy is doomed .
The march of technology can be slowed , but not stopped .
Eventually this will give us a world without theft .
The trick is keep it from also giving us a world without fun .
That means getting rid of most of our laws , not just nibbling around the edges trying to make it hard to enforce them .
No , I do n't know how to achieve that goal , short of re-wiring some brains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privacy is doomed.
The march of technology can be slowed, but not stopped.
Eventually this will give us a world without theft.
The trick is keep it from also giving us a world without fun.
That means getting rid of most of our laws, not just nibbling around the edges trying to make it hard to enforce them.
No, I don't know how to achieve that goal, short of re-wiring some brains.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623375</id>
	<title>Re:Alibi's?</title>
	<author>Dare nMc</author>
	<datestamp>1247071980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, because most criminals<i>, who get caught,</i> aren't that intelligent or thoughtful.  Although I think most career type criminals get caught eventually, but the smarter ones mostly get away with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , because most criminals , who get caught , are n't that intelligent or thoughtful .
Although I think most career type criminals get caught eventually , but the smarter ones mostly get away with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, because most criminals, who get caught, aren't that intelligent or thoughtful.
Although I think most career type criminals get caught eventually, but the smarter ones mostly get away with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621883</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1247066700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you are explicitly choosing to see who is trying to communicate with you and decide if you care to communicate with them or not. That's what caller ID is for. You may or may not choose to tell that caller where you are (you might even lie, see Captain Morgan commercials). You may or may not realize that your phone's location must be narrowed down to the nearest tower for it to work.</p><p>One of my phones had a feature to enable location, disable location unless I dial 911 or disable it for all cases. That setting may or may not be honored in practice, and it can't actually disable locating it to the nearest tower, but it certainly shows that people may have an expectation that their physical location remain private even when they use the phone.</p><p>For most people, cellphones run on magic. The implication that recieving a call means someone or something knew what cell they were currently in is lost on them. Even technical people who haven't read up on it might assume that it works like ethernet switches and broadcasts to all towers until they answer and confirm their location (that wouldn't work very well, and is not what happens, but it's not entirely out of the question as an expectation).</p><p>Keep in mind that expectation is based on a typical person's understanding of the situation,. IMHO, the courts have way too easily denied the expectation of privacy. For example, it claims I have no expectation of privacy in any public place because I should know people will see me. I maintain that I DO have SOME expectation of privacy because those people won't know who I am.</p><p>If I hook a personal GPS up to twitter, THEN you may assume that I am granting people permission to know where I am.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you are explicitly choosing to see who is trying to communicate with you and decide if you care to communicate with them or not .
That 's what caller ID is for .
You may or may not choose to tell that caller where you are ( you might even lie , see Captain Morgan commercials ) .
You may or may not realize that your phone 's location must be narrowed down to the nearest tower for it to work.One of my phones had a feature to enable location , disable location unless I dial 911 or disable it for all cases .
That setting may or may not be honored in practice , and it ca n't actually disable locating it to the nearest tower , but it certainly shows that people may have an expectation that their physical location remain private even when they use the phone.For most people , cellphones run on magic .
The implication that recieving a call means someone or something knew what cell they were currently in is lost on them .
Even technical people who have n't read up on it might assume that it works like ethernet switches and broadcasts to all towers until they answer and confirm their location ( that would n't work very well , and is not what happens , but it 's not entirely out of the question as an expectation ) .Keep in mind that expectation is based on a typical person 's understanding of the situation, .
IMHO , the courts have way too easily denied the expectation of privacy .
For example , it claims I have no expectation of privacy in any public place because I should know people will see me .
I maintain that I DO have SOME expectation of privacy because those people wo n't know who I am.If I hook a personal GPS up to twitter , THEN you may assume that I am granting people permission to know where I am .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you are explicitly choosing to see who is trying to communicate with you and decide if you care to communicate with them or not.
That's what caller ID is for.
You may or may not choose to tell that caller where you are (you might even lie, see Captain Morgan commercials).
You may or may not realize that your phone's location must be narrowed down to the nearest tower for it to work.One of my phones had a feature to enable location, disable location unless I dial 911 or disable it for all cases.
That setting may or may not be honored in practice, and it can't actually disable locating it to the nearest tower, but it certainly shows that people may have an expectation that their physical location remain private even when they use the phone.For most people, cellphones run on magic.
The implication that recieving a call means someone or something knew what cell they were currently in is lost on them.
Even technical people who haven't read up on it might assume that it works like ethernet switches and broadcasts to all towers until they answer and confirm their location (that wouldn't work very well, and is not what happens, but it's not entirely out of the question as an expectation).Keep in mind that expectation is based on a typical person's understanding of the situation,.
IMHO, the courts have way too easily denied the expectation of privacy.
For example, it claims I have no expectation of privacy in any public place because I should know people will see me.
I maintain that I DO have SOME expectation of privacy because those people won't know who I am.If I hook a personal GPS up to twitter, THEN you may assume that I am granting people permission to know where I am.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28626977</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>hmar</author>
	<datestamp>1247084580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, I'm not. My cell phone is there for me to make calls when I need to, not so anyone and everyone can find me. Most of the time my ringer is off, I am not available 24-7. Owning a cell phone is not waiving my expected right to privacy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I 'm not .
My cell phone is there for me to make calls when I need to , not so anyone and everyone can find me .
Most of the time my ringer is off , I am not available 24-7 .
Owning a cell phone is not waiving my expected right to privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I'm not.
My cell phone is there for me to make calls when I need to, not so anyone and everyone can find me.
Most of the time my ringer is off, I am not available 24-7.
Owning a cell phone is not waiving my expected right to privacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621047</id>
	<title>Re:Alibi's?</title>
	<author>blackchiney</author>
	<datestamp>1247063760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This works on CSI, in reality it's much more difficult than that. Unlike TVs the evidence to get a strong conviction doesn't really on a smoking. The evidence is used to build a case against you. If you leave the cellphone behind the prosecution will skip it and rely on other evidence like CC receipts, security cameras, witness testimony, etc. The only thing a cellphone can do is say you are in the area. It doesn't report which building you might have entered, what you possibly said, or what you were thinking.
<br>
<br>
The burden of proof in a criminal case is much higher than a civil case (the ones the RIAA is fond of). Because one means you could go to prison, lose your job, and way of life, the other just means you'll lose some money and probably be a little uncomfortable, temporarily.
<br>
<br>
The arguments slashdot users are making here are the same arguments a decent defense attorney also makes. The prosecutor doesn't like to be blind-sided because he/she relied on a single piece of evidence that could be disqualified or disputed. So they would never rely on just a security camera, or just a cellphone location report. Together they paint a strong picture. Add more evidence and you've got a compelling case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This works on CSI , in reality it 's much more difficult than that .
Unlike TVs the evidence to get a strong conviction does n't really on a smoking .
The evidence is used to build a case against you .
If you leave the cellphone behind the prosecution will skip it and rely on other evidence like CC receipts , security cameras , witness testimony , etc .
The only thing a cellphone can do is say you are in the area .
It does n't report which building you might have entered , what you possibly said , or what you were thinking .
The burden of proof in a criminal case is much higher than a civil case ( the ones the RIAA is fond of ) .
Because one means you could go to prison , lose your job , and way of life , the other just means you 'll lose some money and probably be a little uncomfortable , temporarily .
The arguments slashdot users are making here are the same arguments a decent defense attorney also makes .
The prosecutor does n't like to be blind-sided because he/she relied on a single piece of evidence that could be disqualified or disputed .
So they would never rely on just a security camera , or just a cellphone location report .
Together they paint a strong picture .
Add more evidence and you 've got a compelling case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This works on CSI, in reality it's much more difficult than that.
Unlike TVs the evidence to get a strong conviction doesn't really on a smoking.
The evidence is used to build a case against you.
If you leave the cellphone behind the prosecution will skip it and rely on other evidence like CC receipts, security cameras, witness testimony, etc.
The only thing a cellphone can do is say you are in the area.
It doesn't report which building you might have entered, what you possibly said, or what you were thinking.
The burden of proof in a criminal case is much higher than a civil case (the ones the RIAA is fond of).
Because one means you could go to prison, lose your job, and way of life, the other just means you'll lose some money and probably be a little uncomfortable, temporarily.
The arguments slashdot users are making here are the same arguments a decent defense attorney also makes.
The prosecutor doesn't like to be blind-sided because he/she relied on a single piece of evidence that could be disqualified or disputed.
So they would never rely on just a security camera, or just a cellphone location report.
Together they paint a strong picture.
Add more evidence and you've got a compelling case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621161</id>
	<title>Cellphone data to be stored 12 months</title>
	<author>Raindeer</author>
	<datestamp>1247064060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cellphone traffic data has to be stored for 6-24 months in the EU, exactly for this reason. It's useful for law enforcement. The Dutch Parliament yesterday accepted a law that requires this data to be stored for 12 months (who called who, where). Internet data (who used what IP-adress at what moment, who mailed who, but not what websites were visited, gmail, twitter etc.) will only need to be stored for 6 months.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cellphone traffic data has to be stored for 6-24 months in the EU , exactly for this reason .
It 's useful for law enforcement .
The Dutch Parliament yesterday accepted a law that requires this data to be stored for 12 months ( who called who , where ) .
Internet data ( who used what IP-adress at what moment , who mailed who , but not what websites were visited , gmail , twitter etc .
) will only need to be stored for 6 months .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cellphone traffic data has to be stored for 6-24 months in the EU, exactly for this reason.
It's useful for law enforcement.
The Dutch Parliament yesterday accepted a law that requires this data to be stored for 12 months (who called who, where).
Internet data (who used what IP-adress at what moment, who mailed who, but not what websites were visited, gmail, twitter etc.
) will only need to be stored for 6 months.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620965</id>
	<title>This is not an invasion of privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247063460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your cell phone service provider is not bound by any confidentiality laws.  If they're willing to hand over your records for just a subpoena, or even for a simple request, it's within their rights.  Your expectation of privacy doesn't apply to information that you provide a third party unless it's a doctor, lawyer, or spouse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your cell phone service provider is not bound by any confidentiality laws .
If they 're willing to hand over your records for just a subpoena , or even for a simple request , it 's within their rights .
Your expectation of privacy does n't apply to information that you provide a third party unless it 's a doctor , lawyer , or spouse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your cell phone service provider is not bound by any confidentiality laws.
If they're willing to hand over your records for just a subpoena, or even for a simple request, it's within their rights.
Your expectation of privacy doesn't apply to information that you provide a third party unless it's a doctor, lawyer, or spouse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623163</id>
	<title>Re:Too easy to spoof</title>
	<author>Jarik\_Tentsu</author>
	<datestamp>1247071140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely they're not gonna use the mobile phone as the only piece of evidence. Correct me if I'm wrong as IANAL, but wouldn't multiple pieces of evidence be what can effect a court case? So like, a mobile phone by itself might not be 100\% reliable evidence, but if they have witnesses, other pieces of evidence, etc...</p><p>~Jarik</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely they 're not gon na use the mobile phone as the only piece of evidence .
Correct me if I 'm wrong as IANAL , but would n't multiple pieces of evidence be what can effect a court case ?
So like , a mobile phone by itself might not be 100 \ % reliable evidence , but if they have witnesses , other pieces of evidence , etc... ~ Jarik</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely they're not gonna use the mobile phone as the only piece of evidence.
Correct me if I'm wrong as IANAL, but wouldn't multiple pieces of evidence be what can effect a court case?
So like, a mobile phone by itself might not be 100\% reliable evidence, but if they have witnesses, other pieces of evidence, etc...~Jarik</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621617</id>
	<title>Does no-one watch Star Trek?</title>
	<author>dontmakemethink</author>
	<datestamp>1247065800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every Trekkie knows you take off your communicator before you disobey orders and go whack a Romulan!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every Trekkie knows you take off your communicator before you disobey orders and go whack a Romulan !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every Trekkie knows you take off your communicator before you disobey orders and go whack a Romulan!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28625623</id>
	<title>Is it an issue?</title>
	<author>element-o.p.</author>
	<datestamp>1247079780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not even convinced this is an issue.  From TFS:<p><div class="quote"><p>Investigators seeking warrants must provide a judge with probable cause that a crime has been committed, but investigators often obtain cell-tracking records under lower standards of judicial review &#226;" through subpoenas, which are granted routinely, or through an intermediate type of court order based on an argument that the information requested would be relevant to an investigation.</p></div><p>
It's still getting judicial review before the records are released.  Therefore, a third party (the judge) must review the request before the executive branch (cops, FBI) get to demand the records.  That doesn't seem like a big deal to me.  Before the cops or FBI can investigate my <i>property or person</i>, yes, they need a warrant.  But cell phone data?  Chicken Little, anyone?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not even convinced this is an issue .
From TFS : Investigators seeking warrants must provide a judge with probable cause that a crime has been committed , but investigators often obtain cell-tracking records under lower standards of judicial review   " through subpoenas , which are granted routinely , or through an intermediate type of court order based on an argument that the information requested would be relevant to an investigation .
It 's still getting judicial review before the records are released .
Therefore , a third party ( the judge ) must review the request before the executive branch ( cops , FBI ) get to demand the records .
That does n't seem like a big deal to me .
Before the cops or FBI can investigate my property or person , yes , they need a warrant .
But cell phone data ?
Chicken Little , anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not even convinced this is an issue.
From TFS:Investigators seeking warrants must provide a judge with probable cause that a crime has been committed, but investigators often obtain cell-tracking records under lower standards of judicial review â" through subpoenas, which are granted routinely, or through an intermediate type of court order based on an argument that the information requested would be relevant to an investigation.
It's still getting judicial review before the records are released.
Therefore, a third party (the judge) must review the request before the executive branch (cops, FBI) get to demand the records.
That doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
Before the cops or FBI can investigate my property or person, yes, they need a warrant.
But cell phone data?
Chicken Little, anyone?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620731</id>
	<title>This is true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247062620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was on a jury for a federal case in February.  The prosecutors spent a whole lot of time talking about cell phone records and showing who called who when and on what tower.  To me it didn't really prove anything, because you just don't know who had possession of the phone when the calls were made.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was on a jury for a federal case in February .
The prosecutors spent a whole lot of time talking about cell phone records and showing who called who when and on what tower .
To me it did n't really prove anything , because you just do n't know who had possession of the phone when the calls were made .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was on a jury for a federal case in February.
The prosecutors spent a whole lot of time talking about cell phone records and showing who called who when and on what tower.
To me it didn't really prove anything, because you just don't know who had possession of the phone when the calls were made.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621589</id>
	<title>Re:Too easy to spoof</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1247065680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Privacy protection is for honest people.  Giving criminals ways to feed misleading information to authorities only serves the purposes of the criminals.  It's serves the purposes of law enforcement better for criminals to think 'the cops would need a warrant to search my phone records, and they don't have enough on me to get one, so I'll just use my cellphone and not worry about the tracking data' than for them to think, 'the cops can query my cellphone records at will, and they probably have everyone's data hooked up to a suspicious activity monitoring system that will send up a red flag if I appear suspicious.  I will feed them data that will make me look like Ned Flanders, and go do whatever I want.  They might have their suspicions but when they think they've got my number and see I'm Ned Flanders they'll stop looking.
</p><p>I'll drive from my home in Northern Vermont to Connecticut, hit the mob boss there, drive to New Jersey to collect the cool fifty grand for his head, buy a new blood free duffelbag, and call my 'forgotten' phone which my jealous girlfriend will pick up to see if I'm cheating on her, do some perverted mouth breathing in her ear, and then head home, and break up with her.
</p><p>Investigators will think it's implausable that I was in Connecticut and so stop looking my way.  Of course this 'alibi' wouldn't hold up to scrutiny in court, but it doesn't have to, it's done its job by keeping me out of court in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy protection is for honest people .
Giving criminals ways to feed misleading information to authorities only serves the purposes of the criminals .
It 's serves the purposes of law enforcement better for criminals to think 'the cops would need a warrant to search my phone records , and they do n't have enough on me to get one , so I 'll just use my cellphone and not worry about the tracking data ' than for them to think , 'the cops can query my cellphone records at will , and they probably have everyone 's data hooked up to a suspicious activity monitoring system that will send up a red flag if I appear suspicious .
I will feed them data that will make me look like Ned Flanders , and go do whatever I want .
They might have their suspicions but when they think they 've got my number and see I 'm Ned Flanders they 'll stop looking .
I 'll drive from my home in Northern Vermont to Connecticut , hit the mob boss there , drive to New Jersey to collect the cool fifty grand for his head , buy a new blood free duffelbag , and call my 'forgotten ' phone which my jealous girlfriend will pick up to see if I 'm cheating on her , do some perverted mouth breathing in her ear , and then head home , and break up with her .
Investigators will think it 's implausable that I was in Connecticut and so stop looking my way .
Of course this 'alibi ' would n't hold up to scrutiny in court , but it does n't have to , it 's done its job by keeping me out of court in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privacy protection is for honest people.
Giving criminals ways to feed misleading information to authorities only serves the purposes of the criminals.
It's serves the purposes of law enforcement better for criminals to think 'the cops would need a warrant to search my phone records, and they don't have enough on me to get one, so I'll just use my cellphone and not worry about the tracking data' than for them to think, 'the cops can query my cellphone records at will, and they probably have everyone's data hooked up to a suspicious activity monitoring system that will send up a red flag if I appear suspicious.
I will feed them data that will make me look like Ned Flanders, and go do whatever I want.
They might have their suspicions but when they think they've got my number and see I'm Ned Flanders they'll stop looking.
I'll drive from my home in Northern Vermont to Connecticut, hit the mob boss there, drive to New Jersey to collect the cool fifty grand for his head, buy a new blood free duffelbag, and call my 'forgotten' phone which my jealous girlfriend will pick up to see if I'm cheating on her, do some perverted mouth breathing in her ear, and then head home, and break up with her.
Investigators will think it's implausable that I was in Connecticut and so stop looking my way.
Of course this 'alibi' wouldn't hold up to scrutiny in court, but it doesn't have to, it's done its job by keeping me out of court in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623555</id>
	<title>You're a retard</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247072640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "Where were you on the night of? "<br>"I was at moes having a beer."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... get's cellphone record, cellphone shows you were 20 miles from moes, on the other side of the bridge. Get bridge video camera footage. There's your car and a dude who looks for all the world like you, driving when your phone handed off between sides of the bridge.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "so you said you saw Bob at Moe's drinking on the night of."<br>"yeah"<br>"We've got proof he wasn't there. want to reconsider?"<br>"Can you offer immunity?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or ... " Where were you on the night of ?
" " I was at moes having a beer .
" ... get 's cellphone record , cellphone shows you were 20 miles from moes , on the other side of the bridge .
Get bridge video camera footage .
There 's your car and a dude who looks for all the world like you , driving when your phone handed off between sides of the bridge .
... " so you said you saw Bob at Moe 's drinking on the night of .
" " yeah " " We 've got proof he was n't there .
want to reconsider ?
" " Can you offer immunity ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or ... "Where were you on the night of?
""I was at moes having a beer.
" ... get's cellphone record, cellphone shows you were 20 miles from moes, on the other side of the bridge.
Get bridge video camera footage.
There's your car and a dude who looks for all the world like you, driving when your phone handed off between sides of the bridge.
... "so you said you saw Bob at Moe's drinking on the night of.
""yeah""We've got proof he wasn't there.
want to reconsider?
""Can you offer immunity?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620949</id>
	<title>Mod Parent Up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247063400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Always use throw away cell phones, when committing crimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Always use throw away cell phones , when committing crimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Always use throw away cell phones, when committing crimes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28722829</id>
	<title>Re:Amateurs!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247739240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Withdraw $200.</i> </p><p>And skip the rest of the silliness. If they give it to you in 20s, it will be less noticeable than 50s. Buy nothing except the phones.</p><p>Sheesh.</p><p>Hah! captcha = retard</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Withdraw $ 200 .
And skip the rest of the silliness .
If they give it to you in 20s , it will be less noticeable than 50s .
Buy nothing except the phones.Sheesh.Hah !
captcha = retard</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Withdraw $200.
And skip the rest of the silliness.
If they give it to you in 20s, it will be less noticeable than 50s.
Buy nothing except the phones.Sheesh.Hah!
captcha = retard</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621669</id>
	<title>Re:2 options</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247065980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you mind getting a speeding ticket from data of your phone?</p><p>And what if it was for going 3mph over the limit for 100 feet past the sign where the limit went from 45 to 40...</p><p>And for not coming to a full stop at that stop sign...</p><p>What if they also read out the ecu in your car and fine you for not signaling that turn?</p><p>And in some states, fine you for talking on the phone wile driving...</p><p>The law-enforcement assumption will be that it was you who was talking, driving, etc, and you'll just have to go to court to fight the ticket if you were a passenger...</p><p>And the court will make some 'mistakes' (for example, a clerk assigns you the wrong court date, and 'forgets' to tell you that the police officer has asked to reschedule, etc (yes, that happens, really)), that you can't really do anything about and that will cost you fighting that ticket a couple of extra days.</p><p>No big deal, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you mind getting a speeding ticket from data of your phone ? And what if it was for going 3mph over the limit for 100 feet past the sign where the limit went from 45 to 40...And for not coming to a full stop at that stop sign...What if they also read out the ecu in your car and fine you for not signaling that turn ? And in some states , fine you for talking on the phone wile driving...The law-enforcement assumption will be that it was you who was talking , driving , etc , and you 'll just have to go to court to fight the ticket if you were a passenger...And the court will make some 'mistakes ' ( for example , a clerk assigns you the wrong court date , and 'forgets ' to tell you that the police officer has asked to reschedule , etc ( yes , that happens , really ) ) , that you ca n't really do anything about and that will cost you fighting that ticket a couple of extra days.No big deal , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you mind getting a speeding ticket from data of your phone?And what if it was for going 3mph over the limit for 100 feet past the sign where the limit went from 45 to 40...And for not coming to a full stop at that stop sign...What if they also read out the ecu in your car and fine you for not signaling that turn?And in some states, fine you for talking on the phone wile driving...The law-enforcement assumption will be that it was you who was talking, driving, etc, and you'll just have to go to court to fight the ticket if you were a passenger...And the court will make some 'mistakes' (for example, a clerk assigns you the wrong court date, and 'forgets' to tell you that the police officer has asked to reschedule, etc (yes, that happens, really)), that you can't really do anything about and that will cost you fighting that ticket a couple of extra days.No big deal, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623837</id>
	<title>Not enough of the right kind of tracking</title>
	<author>mstockman</author>
	<datestamp>1247073600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When my cell phone was stolen as part of a neighborhood-wide crime spree, I contacted the police about using my phone, with my full permission and cooperation, to help track the criminal. Whenever I called my phone, the thief (or someone who did business with the thief) was answering. And yet the police declined to take me up on my offer, and never did recover my phone. If my privacy is (potentially) being compromised by how trackable my phone is, where's that "benefit to society" I keep hearing about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When my cell phone was stolen as part of a neighborhood-wide crime spree , I contacted the police about using my phone , with my full permission and cooperation , to help track the criminal .
Whenever I called my phone , the thief ( or someone who did business with the thief ) was answering .
And yet the police declined to take me up on my offer , and never did recover my phone .
If my privacy is ( potentially ) being compromised by how trackable my phone is , where 's that " benefit to society " I keep hearing about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When my cell phone was stolen as part of a neighborhood-wide crime spree, I contacted the police about using my phone, with my full permission and cooperation, to help track the criminal.
Whenever I called my phone, the thief (or someone who did business with the thief) was answering.
And yet the police declined to take me up on my offer, and never did recover my phone.
If my privacy is (potentially) being compromised by how trackable my phone is, where's that "benefit to society" I keep hearing about?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623873</id>
	<title>Re:This is not an invasion of privacy</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1247073780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is not an invasion of privacy</p></div><p>You are right.  People use cell phones voluntarily.<br>But nevertheless it is a LOSS of privacy which is what the ACLU is complaining about.</p><p><em>'The cost of carrying a cellphone should not include the loss of one's personal privacy,' said Catherine Crump, a lawyer for the ACLU."</em></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not an invasion of privacyYou are right .
People use cell phones voluntarily.But nevertheless it is a LOSS of privacy which is what the ACLU is complaining about .
'The cost of carrying a cellphone should not include the loss of one 's personal privacy, ' said Catherine Crump , a lawyer for the ACLU .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not an invasion of privacyYou are right.
People use cell phones voluntarily.But nevertheless it is a LOSS of privacy which is what the ACLU is complaining about.
'The cost of carrying a cellphone should not include the loss of one's personal privacy,' said Catherine Crump, a lawyer for the ACLU.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622119</id>
	<title>Zero zero zero destruct zero</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1247067600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In related news, Apple announced the next iPhone model will have a self destruct mode.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In related news , Apple announced the next iPhone model will have a self destruct mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In related news, Apple announced the next iPhone model will have a self destruct mode.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28630925</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1247062260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
Carrying a cellphone isn't displaying any expectation of privacy.  By having it, you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you.
</p></div><p>The government is supposed to operate to our expectations, not the other way around. And I disagree you about cell phone ownership automatically granting permission for <i>everyone</i> to find me, which is what you seem to be claiming. Matter of fact, the government agrees with me: they don't let telemarketers find you on your cellphone, for example. Furthermore, there's a <i>huge</i> difference between allowing other citizens and some corporations from finding you, and allowing law enforcement to find you without reasonable restrictions. I'm surprised you can't see that.
<br> <br>
Put it this way. If We the People decide (as the Founders did, some two-hundred-odd years ago) that the government is required to seek judicial approval before violating our "papers or personal effects" (and a cell phone is certainly a personal effect) then that's the way it should be. You, actually, need to adjust your expectations to not make matters too easy for the Feds: make them fight for every new authority they assume, every civil liberty they take. Sometimes they are justified in what they want: most of the time they are not. Keep that in mind before you explicitly grant them <i>anything</i> whatsoever. Because, once you do, you'll probably never get it back. Law enforcement doesn't give up authority easily: generally only if lawmakers try to rein them in, but as we've seen with outfits like the TSA, even that doesn't always work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Carrying a cellphone is n't displaying any expectation of privacy .
By having it , you 're explicitly granting permission for people to find you .
The government is supposed to operate to our expectations , not the other way around .
And I disagree you about cell phone ownership automatically granting permission for everyone to find me , which is what you seem to be claiming .
Matter of fact , the government agrees with me : they do n't let telemarketers find you on your cellphone , for example .
Furthermore , there 's a huge difference between allowing other citizens and some corporations from finding you , and allowing law enforcement to find you without reasonable restrictions .
I 'm surprised you ca n't see that .
Put it this way .
If We the People decide ( as the Founders did , some two-hundred-odd years ago ) that the government is required to seek judicial approval before violating our " papers or personal effects " ( and a cell phone is certainly a personal effect ) then that 's the way it should be .
You , actually , need to adjust your expectations to not make matters too easy for the Feds : make them fight for every new authority they assume , every civil liberty they take .
Sometimes they are justified in what they want : most of the time they are not .
Keep that in mind before you explicitly grant them anything whatsoever .
Because , once you do , you 'll probably never get it back .
Law enforcement does n't give up authority easily : generally only if lawmakers try to rein them in , but as we 've seen with outfits like the TSA , even that does n't always work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Carrying a cellphone isn't displaying any expectation of privacy.
By having it, you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you.
The government is supposed to operate to our expectations, not the other way around.
And I disagree you about cell phone ownership automatically granting permission for everyone to find me, which is what you seem to be claiming.
Matter of fact, the government agrees with me: they don't let telemarketers find you on your cellphone, for example.
Furthermore, there's a huge difference between allowing other citizens and some corporations from finding you, and allowing law enforcement to find you without reasonable restrictions.
I'm surprised you can't see that.
Put it this way.
If We the People decide (as the Founders did, some two-hundred-odd years ago) that the government is required to seek judicial approval before violating our "papers or personal effects" (and a cell phone is certainly a personal effect) then that's the way it should be.
You, actually, need to adjust your expectations to not make matters too easy for the Feds: make them fight for every new authority they assume, every civil liberty they take.
Sometimes they are justified in what they want: most of the time they are not.
Keep that in mind before you explicitly grant them anything whatsoever.
Because, once you do, you'll probably never get it back.
Law enforcement doesn't give up authority easily: generally only if lawmakers try to rein them in, but as we've seen with outfits like the TSA, even that doesn't always work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28700867</id>
	<title>Re:This is true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247689980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You seem to have a clue. How did you ever make it past jury selection?</i> </p><p>Drooling on other candidates during voir dire helped a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to have a clue .
How did you ever make it past jury selection ?
Drooling on other candidates during voir dire helped a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to have a clue.
How did you ever make it past jury selection?
Drooling on other candidates during voir dire helped a lot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621219</id>
	<title>Re:This is true</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1247064180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> I was on a jury for a federal case in February. The prosecutors spent a whole lot of time talking about cell phone records and showing who called who when and on what tower. To me it didn't really prove anything, because you just don't know who had possession of the phone when the calls were made. </p><p>I wish I could mod you up.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was on a jury for a federal case in February .
The prosecutors spent a whole lot of time talking about cell phone records and showing who called who when and on what tower .
To me it did n't really prove anything , because you just do n't know who had possession of the phone when the calls were made .
I wish I could mod you up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I was on a jury for a federal case in February.
The prosecutors spent a whole lot of time talking about cell phone records and showing who called who when and on what tower.
To me it didn't really prove anything, because you just don't know who had possession of the phone when the calls were made.
I wish I could mod you up.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621277</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247064360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Carrying a cellphone isn't displaying any expectation of privacy.  By having it, you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you.</p></div><p>No.  It's granting permission for me to make and receive calls.  Nothing more.</p><p>Just because you use email to send/receive messages doesn't mean you want everyone to know *where* you sent the messages from.  The idea is being able to contact people and having them contact you.  It is not to announce your location.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Carrying a cellphone is n't displaying any expectation of privacy .
By having it , you 're explicitly granting permission for people to find you.No .
It 's granting permission for me to make and receive calls .
Nothing more.Just because you use email to send/receive messages does n't mean you want everyone to know * where * you sent the messages from .
The idea is being able to contact people and having them contact you .
It is not to announce your location .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carrying a cellphone isn't displaying any expectation of privacy.
By having it, you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you.No.
It's granting permission for me to make and receive calls.
Nothing more.Just because you use email to send/receive messages doesn't mean you want everyone to know *where* you sent the messages from.
The idea is being able to contact people and having them contact you.
It is not to announce your location.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622753</id>
	<title>Moral of the story</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1247069700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're going to commit a crime, leave the cell phone at home, or better yet, "forget it"  in your alibi's  car for that time period.</p><p>"Oh I was with so and so - check the cell phone records".</p><p>Once again, only the dumb criminals get caught.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're going to commit a crime , leave the cell phone at home , or better yet , " forget it " in your alibi 's car for that time period .
" Oh I was with so and so - check the cell phone records " .Once again , only the dumb criminals get caught .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're going to commit a crime, leave the cell phone at home, or better yet, "forget it"  in your alibi's  car for that time period.
"Oh I was with so and so - check the cell phone records".Once again, only the dumb criminals get caught.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621639</id>
	<title>What the hell?</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1247065860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Investigator</b>: We traced your mobile phone signal to the location of the murder. Can you explain that?<br> <b>Suspect</b>: My phone was stolen not long before the incident, actually. I was making a call in the town, which probably also comes up on the log you have, when a guy snapped it from my hands. I hadn't reported it yet. Say, you don't think this mugger would have also tried to harm someone else to get their belongings, do you? I mean, someone less pansy than me who might have put up a fight?<br> <br>What a pile of useless garbage this scheme is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Investigator : We traced your mobile phone signal to the location of the murder .
Can you explain that ?
Suspect : My phone was stolen not long before the incident , actually .
I was making a call in the town , which probably also comes up on the log you have , when a guy snapped it from my hands .
I had n't reported it yet .
Say , you do n't think this mugger would have also tried to harm someone else to get their belongings , do you ?
I mean , someone less pansy than me who might have put up a fight ?
What a pile of useless garbage this scheme is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Investigator: We traced your mobile phone signal to the location of the murder.
Can you explain that?
Suspect: My phone was stolen not long before the incident, actually.
I was making a call in the town, which probably also comes up on the log you have, when a guy snapped it from my hands.
I hadn't reported it yet.
Say, you don't think this mugger would have also tried to harm someone else to get their belongings, do you?
I mean, someone less pansy than me who might have put up a fight?
What a pile of useless garbage this scheme is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623869</id>
	<title>Re:Cellphone data to be stored 12 months</title>
	<author>cawpin</author>
	<datestamp>1247073720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for letting everybody know why I'll never live in Europe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for letting everybody know why I 'll never live in Europe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for letting everybody know why I'll never live in Europe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28634039</id>
	<title>Re:Make cellphones mandatory?</title>
	<author>Atario</author>
	<datestamp>1247137680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correction:  they love to track technology as long as it doesn't help an ordinary citizen.  My wife was a victim in an armed holdup of a shop and its customers (of which she was one).  Among the stolen items was her cell phone.  I tried with the cops, the cell service provider, and the cell 911 people to get someone to track her phone while they still probably had it.  No one gave a crap nor lifted a finger to help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correction : they love to track technology as long as it does n't help an ordinary citizen .
My wife was a victim in an armed holdup of a shop and its customers ( of which she was one ) .
Among the stolen items was her cell phone .
I tried with the cops , the cell service provider , and the cell 911 people to get someone to track her phone while they still probably had it .
No one gave a crap nor lifted a finger to help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correction:  they love to track technology as long as it doesn't help an ordinary citizen.
My wife was a victim in an armed holdup of a shop and its customers (of which she was one).
Among the stolen items was her cell phone.
I tried with the cops, the cell service provider, and the cell 911 people to get someone to track her phone while they still probably had it.
No one gave a crap nor lifted a finger to help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621703</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621343</id>
	<title>Re:This is not an invasion of privacy</title>
	<author>minor\_deity</author>
	<datestamp>1247064600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which is a glaring hole in the law, one which should be changed.<br> <br>Any personally identifying information held by a company or individual about a second individual should be considered confidential and treated as such. Otherwise you might end up in the situation where your doctor doesn't tell anyone you have disease X, however your credit card company could because they know you've been buying medications. Who the information comes from is really of little consequence; it's the information itself that matters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is a glaring hole in the law , one which should be changed .
Any personally identifying information held by a company or individual about a second individual should be considered confidential and treated as such .
Otherwise you might end up in the situation where your doctor does n't tell anyone you have disease X , however your credit card company could because they know you 've been buying medications .
Who the information comes from is really of little consequence ; it 's the information itself that matters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is a glaring hole in the law, one which should be changed.
Any personally identifying information held by a company or individual about a second individual should be considered confidential and treated as such.
Otherwise you might end up in the situation where your doctor doesn't tell anyone you have disease X, however your credit card company could because they know you've been buying medications.
Who the information comes from is really of little consequence; it's the information itself that matters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620965</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621389</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1247064780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
Carrying a cellphone isn't displaying any expectation of privacy.  By having it, you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you.
</p></div><p>Actually, I am granting the right to <b> <i>attempt to contact</i></b>  me (I can lie about my location, even if I honor the request/answer) to those whom I give credentials (i.e. Cell#)<br> <br>That is a far cry from explicitly allowing the whole world to know my exact location.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Carrying a cellphone is n't displaying any expectation of privacy .
By having it , you 're explicitly granting permission for people to find you .
Actually , I am granting the right to attempt to contact me ( I can lie about my location , even if I honor the request/answer ) to those whom I give credentials ( i.e .
Cell # ) That is a far cry from explicitly allowing the whole world to know my exact location .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Carrying a cellphone isn't displaying any expectation of privacy.
By having it, you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you.
Actually, I am granting the right to  attempt to contact  me (I can lie about my location, even if I honor the request/answer) to those whom I give credentials (i.e.
Cell#) That is a far cry from explicitly allowing the whole world to know my exact location.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623859</id>
	<title>Re:A question that needs answering in these cases.</title>
	<author>cawpin</author>
	<datestamp>1247073660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's exactly what I was thinking. So his phone was somewhere, woohoo. Convict the phone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's exactly what I was thinking .
So his phone was somewhere , woohoo .
Convict the phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's exactly what I was thinking.
So his phone was somewhere, woohoo.
Convict the phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621667</id>
	<title>Why Store is the Question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247065980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question is: why do the cell companies retain such information?  If the bill is paid, then the knowledge of what cell tower was nearest to me when I made the call, and other similar matters, becomes totally indefensible.  Why do they still retain such useless data?</p><p>I suppose it's because they can.  Storage is cheap, and only a few extra lines of code will do the job.</p><p>Another example is the public library.  They usually retain a list of all books that a patron has withdrawn.  But why?  What purpose does it serve?  They don't sell targeted advertising or offer recommendations based upon a patron's reading history.  When a book is returned, all record of that transaction should be immediately deleted simply because it no longer serves any purpose.</p><p>If these companies would throw away all such useless information about their patrons and clients, then privacy concerns would become very much smaller.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is : why do the cell companies retain such information ?
If the bill is paid , then the knowledge of what cell tower was nearest to me when I made the call , and other similar matters , becomes totally indefensible .
Why do they still retain such useless data ? I suppose it 's because they can .
Storage is cheap , and only a few extra lines of code will do the job.Another example is the public library .
They usually retain a list of all books that a patron has withdrawn .
But why ?
What purpose does it serve ?
They do n't sell targeted advertising or offer recommendations based upon a patron 's reading history .
When a book is returned , all record of that transaction should be immediately deleted simply because it no longer serves any purpose.If these companies would throw away all such useless information about their patrons and clients , then privacy concerns would become very much smaller .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question is: why do the cell companies retain such information?
If the bill is paid, then the knowledge of what cell tower was nearest to me when I made the call, and other similar matters, becomes totally indefensible.
Why do they still retain such useless data?I suppose it's because they can.
Storage is cheap, and only a few extra lines of code will do the job.Another example is the public library.
They usually retain a list of all books that a patron has withdrawn.
But why?
What purpose does it serve?
They don't sell targeted advertising or offer recommendations based upon a patron's reading history.
When a book is returned, all record of that transaction should be immediately deleted simply because it no longer serves any purpose.If these companies would throw away all such useless information about their patrons and clients, then privacy concerns would become very much smaller.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621281</id>
	<title>Re:Too easy to spoof</title>
	<author>dachshund</author>
	<datestamp>1247064360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's a simple matter to avoid this sort of scrutiny. Give the cell phone in your name to someone else, go commit the crime, and then retrieve the phone. </i> </p><p>A surprising number of murders are crimes of passion, <i>i.e.,</i> the murderer didn't set out to commit a crime, and didn't plan accordingly.  Many of the others are carried out by stupid people.</p><p>But yes, I agree.  And I would take this further --- if you're ever planning to do something questionable, like cheat on your wife/girlfriend, buy drugs, take clothes/food to an escaped political prisoner who's wanted by your authoritarian government, you should be proactive and take the battery out.  There's no telling how long those records will be archived somewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a simple matter to avoid this sort of scrutiny .
Give the cell phone in your name to someone else , go commit the crime , and then retrieve the phone .
A surprising number of murders are crimes of passion , i.e. , the murderer did n't set out to commit a crime , and did n't plan accordingly .
Many of the others are carried out by stupid people.But yes , I agree .
And I would take this further --- if you 're ever planning to do something questionable , like cheat on your wife/girlfriend , buy drugs , take clothes/food to an escaped political prisoner who 's wanted by your authoritarian government , you should be proactive and take the battery out .
There 's no telling how long those records will be archived somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a simple matter to avoid this sort of scrutiny.
Give the cell phone in your name to someone else, go commit the crime, and then retrieve the phone.
A surprising number of murders are crimes of passion, i.e., the murderer didn't set out to commit a crime, and didn't plan accordingly.
Many of the others are carried out by stupid people.But yes, I agree.
And I would take this further --- if you're ever planning to do something questionable, like cheat on your wife/girlfriend, buy drugs, take clothes/food to an escaped political prisoner who's wanted by your authoritarian government, you should be proactive and take the battery out.
There's no telling how long those records will be archived somewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622005</id>
	<title>Re:A question that needs answering in these cases.</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1247067240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People don't get convicted because their cell phone was or wasn't in one location or another, they get convicted because they have no plausible explanation for why their cell phone was in a location that fits in perfectly with the story the prosecution is telling and contradicts the story the defense is telling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People do n't get convicted because their cell phone was or was n't in one location or another , they get convicted because they have no plausible explanation for why their cell phone was in a location that fits in perfectly with the story the prosecution is telling and contradicts the story the defense is telling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People don't get convicted because their cell phone was or wasn't in one location or another, they get convicted because they have no plausible explanation for why their cell phone was in a location that fits in perfectly with the story the prosecution is telling and contradicts the story the defense is telling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28638983</id>
	<title>ignorance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247164080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn\_after\_reading" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">same movie</a> [wikipedia.org], when the woman and her goofy friend first call the spy to blackmail him, they don't <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone\_feature\_code" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">*67</a> [wikipedia.org] to hide their phone number. Too dumb to know about caller ID, are they? And the spy doesn't *69 them? The movie is intentionally full of holes, but depending on your bent it can be fun to see how many mistakes you catch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the same movie [ wikipedia.org ] , when the woman and her goofy friend first call the spy to blackmail him , they do n't * 67 [ wikipedia.org ] to hide their phone number .
Too dumb to know about caller ID , are they ?
And the spy does n't * 69 them ?
The movie is intentionally full of holes , but depending on your bent it can be fun to see how many mistakes you catch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the same movie [wikipedia.org], when the woman and her goofy friend first call the spy to blackmail him, they don't *67 [wikipedia.org] to hide their phone number.
Too dumb to know about caller ID, are they?
And the spy doesn't *69 them?
The movie is intentionally full of holes, but depending on your bent it can be fun to see how many mistakes you catch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620727</id>
	<title>A question that needs answering in these cases...</title>
	<author>DontBlameCanada</author>
	<datestamp>1247062560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does the prosecution prove that the cellphone was in possession of the accused at the time?</p><p>My wife frequently borrows my phone if she needs to go out and hers is dead. I'll do the same with hers. Its a portable device, with no onboard biometrics. Anyone could pick it up and transport it somewhere without the owner's knowledge or permission. What better way to frame someone for a crime than to take their phone to the scene, do the crime, call the phone (to generate a calling record with cell-tower location data) then return it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does the prosecution prove that the cellphone was in possession of the accused at the time ? My wife frequently borrows my phone if she needs to go out and hers is dead .
I 'll do the same with hers .
Its a portable device , with no onboard biometrics .
Anyone could pick it up and transport it somewhere without the owner 's knowledge or permission .
What better way to frame someone for a crime than to take their phone to the scene , do the crime , call the phone ( to generate a calling record with cell-tower location data ) then return it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does the prosecution prove that the cellphone was in possession of the accused at the time?My wife frequently borrows my phone if she needs to go out and hers is dead.
I'll do the same with hers.
Its a portable device, with no onboard biometrics.
Anyone could pick it up and transport it somewhere without the owner's knowledge or permission.
What better way to frame someone for a crime than to take their phone to the scene, do the crime, call the phone (to generate a calling record with cell-tower location data) then return it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621121</id>
	<title>Polygraph</title>
	<author>HogGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1247063940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wy do I have the feeling this is used like Lie Detector tests?</p><p>If a polygraph test indicates guilt, then the prosecution will use all means to get it admissible. However, if it indicates innocence, it will be "brushed over"...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wy do I have the feeling this is used like Lie Detector tests ? If a polygraph test indicates guilt , then the prosecution will use all means to get it admissible .
However , if it indicates innocence , it will be " brushed over " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wy do I have the feeling this is used like Lie Detector tests?If a polygraph test indicates guilt, then the prosecution will use all means to get it admissible.
However, if it indicates innocence, it will be "brushed over"...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621693</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>CopaceticOpus</author>
	<datestamp>1247066040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? Do cell phone companies clearly communicate to their customers that they will be keeping a log of everywhere the customer goes? A reasonable person might understand that the company would be able to know which towers the phone was connected to, but why would they think that this information was being recorded and stored?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Do cell phone companies clearly communicate to their customers that they will be keeping a log of everywhere the customer goes ?
A reasonable person might understand that the company would be able to know which towers the phone was connected to , but why would they think that this information was being recorded and stored ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Do cell phone companies clearly communicate to their customers that they will be keeping a log of everywhere the customer goes?
A reasonable person might understand that the company would be able to know which towers the phone was connected to, but why would they think that this information was being recorded and stored?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28627703</id>
	<title>Re:It is worth saying again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247044560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a world without theft? depends on how you define theft.  if you mean theft of trinkets, perhaps.  if you mean theft of liberty, that's a different matter entirely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a world without theft ?
depends on how you define theft .
if you mean theft of trinkets , perhaps .
if you mean theft of liberty , that 's a different matter entirely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a world without theft?
depends on how you define theft.
if you mean theft of trinkets, perhaps.
if you mean theft of liberty, that's a different matter entirely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621791</id>
	<title>Re:Alibi's?</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1247066340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It won't make much of a difference.  The same DA who argued that the information should absolutely be considered reliable when it points toward the defendants guilt will argue in the next case that it should not be considered reliable at all if it points toward innocence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't make much of a difference .
The same DA who argued that the information should absolutely be considered reliable when it points toward the defendants guilt will argue in the next case that it should not be considered reliable at all if it points toward innocence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't make much of a difference.
The same DA who argued that the information should absolutely be considered reliable when it points toward the defendants guilt will argue in the next case that it should not be considered reliable at all if it points toward innocence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620685</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247062440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I allowed to choose that I want to carry it only in the event that I wish to make a call without neccessarily switching it on first, and not for the purpose of being tracked by sattelite, or is this choice prohibited?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I allowed to choose that I want to carry it only in the event that I wish to make a call without neccessarily switching it on first , and not for the purpose of being tracked by sattelite , or is this choice prohibited ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I allowed to choose that I want to carry it only in the event that I wish to make a call without neccessarily switching it on first, and not for the purpose of being tracked by sattelite, or is this choice prohibited?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620717</id>
	<title>Too easy to spoof</title>
	<author>ultraexactzz</author>
	<datestamp>1247062560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a simple matter to avoid this sort of scrutiny. Give the cell phone in your name to someone else, go commit the crime, and then retrieve the phone. If you can't keep yourself from texting for 20 minutes, then you really have no business being a felon. <br> <br>I find this reminiscent of the RIAA's arguments, where they show that infringement took place from an IP, but they cannot show who was sitting at the computer. Who can prove who was carrying a cell phone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a simple matter to avoid this sort of scrutiny .
Give the cell phone in your name to someone else , go commit the crime , and then retrieve the phone .
If you ca n't keep yourself from texting for 20 minutes , then you really have no business being a felon .
I find this reminiscent of the RIAA 's arguments , where they show that infringement took place from an IP , but they can not show who was sitting at the computer .
Who can prove who was carrying a cell phone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a simple matter to avoid this sort of scrutiny.
Give the cell phone in your name to someone else, go commit the crime, and then retrieve the phone.
If you can't keep yourself from texting for 20 minutes, then you really have no business being a felon.
I find this reminiscent of the RIAA's arguments, where they show that infringement took place from an IP, but they cannot show who was sitting at the computer.
Who can prove who was carrying a cell phone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622505</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>Quothz</author>
	<datestamp>1247068920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
Carrying a cellphone isn't displaying any expectation of privacy.  By having it, you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you.
</p></div><p>The same is true of having a street address, but those of us who live in homes have an expectation of privacy nonetheless. When I hike, I tell folks about where I'll be, but nobody has yet taken that as permission to follow me around with a camera. I have no idea why you think ease of location is the same as permission.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Carrying a cellphone is n't displaying any expectation of privacy .
By having it , you 're explicitly granting permission for people to find you .
The same is true of having a street address , but those of us who live in homes have an expectation of privacy nonetheless .
When I hike , I tell folks about where I 'll be , but nobody has yet taken that as permission to follow me around with a camera .
I have no idea why you think ease of location is the same as permission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Carrying a cellphone isn't displaying any expectation of privacy.
By having it, you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you.
The same is true of having a street address, but those of us who live in homes have an expectation of privacy nonetheless.
When I hike, I tell folks about where I'll be, but nobody has yet taken that as permission to follow me around with a camera.
I have no idea why you think ease of location is the same as permission.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620879</id>
	<title>Location doesn't prove much for us...</title>
	<author>Sirusjr</author>
	<datestamp>1247063100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see why we on slashdot care about this with the majority of us spending all of our times in one solitary location in front of a desktop PC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see why we on slashdot care about this with the majority of us spending all of our times in one solitary location in front of a desktop PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see why we on slashdot care about this with the majority of us spending all of our times in one solitary location in front of a desktop PC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621771</id>
	<title>Re:It is worth saying again</title>
	<author>davegravy</author>
	<datestamp>1247066280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Eventually this will give us a world without theft.  The trick is keep it from also giving us a world without fun.</p> </div><p>The latter is not so important if you have a society that isn't aware of what fun is. You can't long for that which you don't know you're missing. Read Nineteen Eighty-Four sometime if you haven't already.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eventually this will give us a world without theft .
The trick is keep it from also giving us a world without fun .
The latter is not so important if you have a society that is n't aware of what fun is .
You ca n't long for that which you do n't know you 're missing .
Read Nineteen Eighty-Four sometime if you have n't already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Eventually this will give us a world without theft.
The trick is keep it from also giving us a world without fun.
The latter is not so important if you have a society that isn't aware of what fun is.
You can't long for that which you don't know you're missing.
Read Nineteen Eighty-Four sometime if you haven't already.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28635849</id>
	<title>Public safety (?) vs privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247151600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, this is an example of Privacy vs Policing (Law enforcement), not public safety.  Police activity may be a part of public safety, but it's not the only one.  Additionally, police work covers a lot of areas other than public safety.  As an former journalist I quibble about the difference.  One's choice of terms influences the reader's impression of what is being described, so it is important to do so with the utmost accuracy.</p><p>In my opinion the police should need warrants to track you via your cell phone, and IP addresses are personal info because at the time they are checked they identify "your" (personal) computer, not just "a" computer.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , this is an example of Privacy vs Policing ( Law enforcement ) , not public safety .
Police activity may be a part of public safety , but it 's not the only one .
Additionally , police work covers a lot of areas other than public safety .
As an former journalist I quibble about the difference .
One 's choice of terms influences the reader 's impression of what is being described , so it is important to do so with the utmost accuracy.In my opinion the police should need warrants to track you via your cell phone , and IP addresses are personal info because at the time they are checked they identify " your " ( personal ) computer , not just " a " computer.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, this is an example of Privacy vs Policing (Law enforcement), not public safety.
Police activity may be a part of public safety, but it's not the only one.
Additionally, police work covers a lot of areas other than public safety.
As an former journalist I quibble about the difference.
One's choice of terms influences the reader's impression of what is being described, so it is important to do so with the utmost accuracy.In my opinion the police should need warrants to track you via your cell phone, and IP addresses are personal info because at the time they are checked they identify "your" (personal) computer, not just "a" computer.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28629643</id>
	<title>Re:Location doesn't prove much for us...</title>
	<author>spartacus\_prime</author>
	<datestamp>1247054400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use a laptop, you insensitive clod!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use a laptop , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use a laptop, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620879</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623515</id>
	<title>Re:Cellphone data to be stored 12 months</title>
	<author>Spacezilla</author>
	<datestamp>1247072520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Internet data (who used what IP-adress at what moment, who mailed who, but not what websites were visited, gmail, twitter etc.) will only need to be stored for 6 months.</p></div><p>I'm not saying you're wrong, but are you sure you understood that right? They're obviously against packet inspection if they're not going to save "what websites were visited, gmail, twitter etc.". Why would they inspect e-mail packets then? And why would saving who you e-mailed be any different than saving who you sent a message on MSN?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet data ( who used what IP-adress at what moment , who mailed who , but not what websites were visited , gmail , twitter etc .
) will only need to be stored for 6 months.I 'm not saying you 're wrong , but are you sure you understood that right ?
They 're obviously against packet inspection if they 're not going to save " what websites were visited , gmail , twitter etc. " .
Why would they inspect e-mail packets then ?
And why would saving who you e-mailed be any different than saving who you sent a message on MSN ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet data (who used what IP-adress at what moment, who mailed who, but not what websites were visited, gmail, twitter etc.
) will only need to be stored for 6 months.I'm not saying you're wrong, but are you sure you understood that right?
They're obviously against packet inspection if they're not going to save "what websites were visited, gmail, twitter etc.".
Why would they inspect e-mail packets then?
And why would saving who you e-mailed be any different than saving who you sent a message on MSN?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621089</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247063880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Erh... no. I grant people the right too <i>reach</i> me, as in, get in contact with me, if, and only if, I choose to answer it when they call me.</p><p>That's what I explicitly grant when carrying a cell around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Erh... no. I grant people the right too reach me , as in , get in contact with me , if , and only if , I choose to answer it when they call me.That 's what I explicitly grant when carrying a cell around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Erh... no. I grant people the right too reach me, as in, get in contact with me, if, and only if, I choose to answer it when they call me.That's what I explicitly grant when carrying a cell around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28627087</id>
	<title>Try tracking my cellphone</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1247084880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/0/2/3/5/3/7/webimg/209227620\_tp.jpg" title="auctiva.com">My cellphone</a> [auctiva.com] is untrackable, never bothers me with calls, never needs charging (it has no battery or electronics), is totally waterproof, and has no monthly fee. Try tracking that!</htmltext>
<tokenext>My cellphone [ auctiva.com ] is untrackable , never bothers me with calls , never needs charging ( it has no battery or electronics ) , is totally waterproof , and has no monthly fee .
Try tracking that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My cellphone [auctiva.com] is untrackable, never bothers me with calls, never needs charging (it has no battery or electronics), is totally waterproof, and has no monthly fee.
Try tracking that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620881</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247063100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a difference between "people" and law enforcement however.  Case law has been shown to allow for general vicinity locating but anything more accurate requires a warrant:<br>
<a href="http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/celltracking/lenihanorder.pdf" title="eff.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/celltracking/lenihanorder.pdf</a> [eff.org]
<br> <br>
However this can vary by jurisdiction so YMMV.<br>
<br>
Now if someone wanted to track you on their own and can do so, that's their prerogative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a difference between " people " and law enforcement however .
Case law has been shown to allow for general vicinity locating but anything more accurate requires a warrant : http : //www.eff.org/files/filenode/celltracking/lenihanorder.pdf [ eff.org ] However this can vary by jurisdiction so YMMV .
Now if someone wanted to track you on their own and can do so , that 's their prerogative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a difference between "people" and law enforcement however.
Case law has been shown to allow for general vicinity locating but anything more accurate requires a warrant:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/celltracking/lenihanorder.pdf [eff.org]
 
However this can vary by jurisdiction so YMMV.
Now if someone wanted to track you on their own and can do so, that's their prerogative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622003</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247067240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bottom line<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... whenever I murder someone these days I make sure to leave my phone at home. I really don't want that thing going off and disturb me at the critical point any way. Us murderers must be ultra careful these day. Whatever happened to our civil liberties? It is no fun murdering people anymore, always having to look over your shoulder... bloody police state!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bottom line ... whenever I murder someone these days I make sure to leave my phone at home .
I really do n't want that thing going off and disturb me at the critical point any way .
Us murderers must be ultra careful these day .
Whatever happened to our civil liberties ?
It is no fun murdering people anymore , always having to look over your shoulder... bloody police state !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bottom line ... whenever I murder someone these days I make sure to leave my phone at home.
I really don't want that thing going off and disturb me at the critical point any way.
Us murderers must be ultra careful these day.
Whatever happened to our civil liberties?
It is no fun murdering people anymore, always having to look over your shoulder... bloody police state!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28630821</id>
	<title>What's in a name?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247061540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... but the Justice Department has appealed the ruling.</p></div><p>They need a new name. Seriously. Something that more accurately reflects the current state of affairs at that particular government organ.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... but the Justice Department has appealed the ruling.They need a new name .
Seriously. Something that more accurately reflects the current state of affairs at that particular government organ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... but the Justice Department has appealed the ruling.They need a new name.
Seriously. Something that more accurately reflects the current state of affairs at that particular government organ.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621107</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>dachshund</author>
	<datestamp>1247063940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Carrying a cellphone isn't displaying any expectation of privacy. By having it, you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you.</i> </p><p>I think you're explicitly granting permission for people to <i>call</i> you, which is not the same thing as knowing where you are.  Similarly, just because my cellphone can record audio and video while "off-hook" doesn't mean that I'm explicitly granting permission for people to eavesdrop my day-to-day conversations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Carrying a cellphone is n't displaying any expectation of privacy .
By having it , you 're explicitly granting permission for people to find you .
I think you 're explicitly granting permission for people to call you , which is not the same thing as knowing where you are .
Similarly , just because my cellphone can record audio and video while " off-hook " does n't mean that I 'm explicitly granting permission for people to eavesdrop my day-to-day conversations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Carrying a cellphone isn't displaying any expectation of privacy.
By having it, you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you.
I think you're explicitly granting permission for people to call you, which is not the same thing as knowing where you are.
Similarly, just because my cellphone can record audio and video while "off-hook" doesn't mean that I'm explicitly granting permission for people to eavesdrop my day-to-day conversations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28625263</id>
	<title>Re:What the hell?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247078580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That excuse has been used before for cars and, well, pretty much any item that could be traced back to a particular person. Juries may not find the cellphone equivalent of "the dog ate my homework" convincing, particularly if the preponderance of evidence is against the suspect.</p><p>It could also end up tripping up the subject. "That was the same cell phone you had on your person when you were arrested. How did you get it back?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That excuse has been used before for cars and , well , pretty much any item that could be traced back to a particular person .
Juries may not find the cellphone equivalent of " the dog ate my homework " convincing , particularly if the preponderance of evidence is against the suspect.It could also end up tripping up the subject .
" That was the same cell phone you had on your person when you were arrested .
How did you get it back ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That excuse has been used before for cars and, well, pretty much any item that could be traced back to a particular person.
Juries may not find the cellphone equivalent of "the dog ate my homework" convincing, particularly if the preponderance of evidence is against the suspect.It could also end up tripping up the subject.
"That was the same cell phone you had on your person when you were arrested.
How did you get it back?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621679</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>Mr.Ned</author>
	<datestamp>1247065980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not explicitly granting permission for people to find me; I'm letting a select group of people try to get in touch with me.  I don't give my number out to just anyone, and even if I do give it to you, I'm not always going to choose to pick up the phone when you call.  I do have my phone configured to give location information to emergency services, but not to anyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not explicitly granting permission for people to find me ; I 'm letting a select group of people try to get in touch with me .
I do n't give my number out to just anyone , and even if I do give it to you , I 'm not always going to choose to pick up the phone when you call .
I do have my phone configured to give location information to emergency services , but not to anyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not explicitly granting permission for people to find me; I'm letting a select group of people try to get in touch with me.
I don't give my number out to just anyone, and even if I do give it to you, I'm not always going to choose to pick up the phone when you call.
I do have my phone configured to give location information to emergency services, but not to anyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620811</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>Profane MuthaFucka</author>
	<datestamp>1247062920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think explicitly means what you think it means. The word you need is implicitly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think explicitly means what you think it means .
The word you need is implicitly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think explicitly means what you think it means.
The word you need is implicitly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621247</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>William Robinson</author>
	<datestamp>1247064240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By having it, you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you.</p><p>

No. I did a project for a bank where the bank would ask user permission on Cell Phone (within 4 seconds) before authorizing the transaction on his Credit Card (since many credit card users were reporting fraud). The proposal of querying Cell Phone for its location went through heavy debate due to concerns of users privacy. It held some ground only with arguments that we were not tracking user on regular basis and we would record his/her locations only when he/she uses credit card.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By having it , you 're explicitly granting permission for people to find you .
No. I did a project for a bank where the bank would ask user permission on Cell Phone ( within 4 seconds ) before authorizing the transaction on his Credit Card ( since many credit card users were reporting fraud ) .
The proposal of querying Cell Phone for its location went through heavy debate due to concerns of users privacy .
It held some ground only with arguments that we were not tracking user on regular basis and we would record his/her locations only when he/she uses credit card .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By having it, you're explicitly granting permission for people to find you.
No. I did a project for a bank where the bank would ask user permission on Cell Phone (within 4 seconds) before authorizing the transaction on his Credit Card (since many credit card users were reporting fraud).
The proposal of querying Cell Phone for its location went through heavy debate due to concerns of users privacy.
It held some ground only with arguments that we were not tracking user on regular basis and we would record his/her locations only when he/she uses credit card.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28627357</id>
	<title>Re:What the hell?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247086020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Investigator: Then why is your mobile phone in your pocket?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Investigator : Then why is your mobile phone in your pocket ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Investigator: Then why is your mobile phone in your pocket?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28633347</id>
	<title>Re:Cellphone data to be stored 12 months</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247130360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Law enforcement would benefit tremendously if they had access to complete information about everyone at all times - their every word and movement. Law enforcement agencies will try to argue to get any information they can - their job does not involve consideration for the privacy implications, so they will ask for everything, and as technology evolves, it is certain that increasing amounts of information will be there for them to request.</p><p>Societies have to decide where they think a reasonable balance lies between assisting law enforcement and the intrusion of privacy together with the inevitable risks of personal information falling into the hands of non-law enforcement agencies such as newspapers, private detectives, insurance companies, criminals etc.</p><p>Of course law enforcement agencies won't argue for any balance. The media probably won't bother much with presenting that balance. My point is that it is up to citizens to counter the excessive demands of law enforcement, and ensure the right level of protection of private data is achieved. That means ensuring that the legal safeguards on data are approriate eg search warrants rather than subpeonas in the case of US data.</p><p>So please, don't just accept that the police/security services demands for data are the best thing for you without thinking about where YOU want the boundary to lie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Law enforcement would benefit tremendously if they had access to complete information about everyone at all times - their every word and movement .
Law enforcement agencies will try to argue to get any information they can - their job does not involve consideration for the privacy implications , so they will ask for everything , and as technology evolves , it is certain that increasing amounts of information will be there for them to request.Societies have to decide where they think a reasonable balance lies between assisting law enforcement and the intrusion of privacy together with the inevitable risks of personal information falling into the hands of non-law enforcement agencies such as newspapers , private detectives , insurance companies , criminals etc.Of course law enforcement agencies wo n't argue for any balance .
The media probably wo n't bother much with presenting that balance .
My point is that it is up to citizens to counter the excessive demands of law enforcement , and ensure the right level of protection of private data is achieved .
That means ensuring that the legal safeguards on data are approriate eg search warrants rather than subpeonas in the case of US data.So please , do n't just accept that the police/security services demands for data are the best thing for you without thinking about where YOU want the boundary to lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Law enforcement would benefit tremendously if they had access to complete information about everyone at all times - their every word and movement.
Law enforcement agencies will try to argue to get any information they can - their job does not involve consideration for the privacy implications, so they will ask for everything, and as technology evolves, it is certain that increasing amounts of information will be there for them to request.Societies have to decide where they think a reasonable balance lies between assisting law enforcement and the intrusion of privacy together with the inevitable risks of personal information falling into the hands of non-law enforcement agencies such as newspapers, private detectives, insurance companies, criminals etc.Of course law enforcement agencies won't argue for any balance.
The media probably won't bother much with presenting that balance.
My point is that it is up to citizens to counter the excessive demands of law enforcement, and ensure the right level of protection of private data is achieved.
That means ensuring that the legal safeguards on data are approriate eg search warrants rather than subpeonas in the case of US data.So please, don't just accept that the police/security services demands for data are the best thing for you without thinking about where YOU want the boundary to lie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621223</id>
	<title>Re:This is true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247064180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to have a clue.  How did you ever make it past jury selection?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to have a clue .
How did you ever make it past jury selection ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to have a clue.
How did you ever make it past jury selection?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620731</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622727</id>
	<title>disposable phones?</title>
	<author>coolsnowmen</author>
	<datestamp>1247069640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't most good criminals use disposable pay-as-you-go phones?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't most good criminals use disposable pay-as-you-go phones ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't most good criminals use disposable pay-as-you-go phones?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621467</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1247065140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So this is great news for you!  You can read the many responses that show that your reason is bogus!  Now off you go on your journey from living in the 70's to present day<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>So this is great news for you !
You can read the many responses that show that your reason is bogus !
Now off you go on your journey from living in the 70 's to present day ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this is great news for you!
You can read the many responses that show that your reason is bogus!
Now off you go on your journey from living in the 70's to present day ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620703</id>
	<title>2 options</title>
	<author>pig-power</author>
	<datestamp>1247062500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like there are only 2 real choices here:<br>
1. Don't use or carry cellphone<br>
2. Don't break any laws<br>
Was there anything I missed?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like there are only 2 real choices here : 1 .
Do n't use or carry cellphone 2 .
Do n't break any laws Was there anything I missed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like there are only 2 real choices here:
1.
Don't use or carry cellphone
2.
Don't break any laws
Was there anything I missed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621139</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247064000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is exactly why I do not own a cell phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is exactly why I do not own a cell phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is exactly why I do not own a cell phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621701</id>
	<title>Re:Alibi's?</title>
	<author>ShadowRangerRIT</author>
	<datestamp>1247066040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alternatively, they use pre-paids, pay with cash, and discard the phone every few weeks/months.  Hard to track call records if there's no proof you ever owned the phone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alternatively , they use pre-paids , pay with cash , and discard the phone every few weeks/months .
Hard to track call records if there 's no proof you ever owned the phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alternatively, they use pre-paids, pay with cash, and discard the phone every few weeks/months.
Hard to track call records if there's no proof you ever owned the phone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620581</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621783</id>
	<title>Re:"Right" to a private cell phone?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1247066340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when? Are you confusing phones with com badges from Star Trek, perhaps?</p><p>And even leaving aside that point, why does that grant the right for the police to seize records without a warrant?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when ?
Are you confusing phones with com badges from Star Trek , perhaps ? And even leaving aside that point , why does that grant the right for the police to seize records without a warrant ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when?
Are you confusing phones with com badges from Star Trek, perhaps?And even leaving aside that point, why does that grant the right for the police to seize records without a warrant?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621097</id>
	<title>New Alibi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247063940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So all I have to do is leave my cellphone home and I can go commit crimes? What is the world coming too?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So all I have to do is leave my cellphone home and I can go commit crimes ?
What is the world coming too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So all I have to do is leave my cellphone home and I can go commit crimes?
What is the world coming too?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621919</id>
	<title>Re:Alibi's?</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1247066880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cell phone position alone could not crack an alibi. However, if the suspect made a phone call from his cell during the same time period as the crime, that could very well break their alibi.</p></div><p>IF the person called testifies that it was the defendant who made the call. Otherwise, the defendant "lost his phone" and a bag lady found it and called someone in the address book (who knows why?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cell phone position alone could not crack an alibi .
However , if the suspect made a phone call from his cell during the same time period as the crime , that could very well break their alibi.IF the person called testifies that it was the defendant who made the call .
Otherwise , the defendant " lost his phone " and a bag lady found it and called someone in the address book ( who knows why ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cell phone position alone could not crack an alibi.
However, if the suspect made a phone call from his cell during the same time period as the crime, that could very well break their alibi.IF the person called testifies that it was the defendant who made the call.
Otherwise, the defendant "lost his phone" and a bag lady found it and called someone in the address book (who knows why?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28624221</id>
	<title>Re:Alibi's?</title>
	<author>ucribido</author>
	<datestamp>1247075160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now that we are aware of the increasing use by law enforcement of cell phone records, won't criminal simply setup their cell phones at some alibi spot, go off and commit the crime and use the records as support for that alibi?</p></div><p>What if you steal someone's cell phone that you want to frame for a crime you commit?<br>Just don't forget to leave your own cell phone behind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that we are aware of the increasing use by law enforcement of cell phone records , wo n't criminal simply setup their cell phones at some alibi spot , go off and commit the crime and use the records as support for that alibi ? What if you steal someone 's cell phone that you want to frame for a crime you commit ? Just do n't forget to leave your own cell phone behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that we are aware of the increasing use by law enforcement of cell phone records, won't criminal simply setup their cell phones at some alibi spot, go off and commit the crime and use the records as support for that alibi?What if you steal someone's cell phone that you want to frame for a crime you commit?Just don't forget to leave your own cell phone behind.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620581</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28627703
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28627357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28654509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28700867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621047
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622725
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621799
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28624221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623555
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28626977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28683263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28633347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28629643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28722829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622089
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28624919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28630925
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28627639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28634039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621211
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28638983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620949
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620881
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28624075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28625263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623163
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_2331254_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28687643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2331254.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623555
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28627357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28627639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28625263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2331254.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621223
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28700867
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2331254.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621097
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2331254.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2331254.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2331254.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622119
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2331254.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28638983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2331254.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28627087
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2331254.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621139
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28626977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621107
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28687643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28630925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2331254.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623837
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2331254.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28633347
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2331254.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28634039
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2331254.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622647
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2331254.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620965
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621343
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2331254.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28654509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2331254.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621013
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28624221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621047
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621799
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2331254.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28622089
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28722829
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2331254.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28624075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28627703
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2331254.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28624919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28683263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28629643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_2331254.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28620717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28623163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_2331254.28621281
</commentlist>
</conversation>
