<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_14_1330239</id>
	<title>New Zealand Introduces Internet Filtering</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1247579220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://thomasbeagle.net/" rel="nofollow">Thomas Beagle</a> writes <i>"The <a href="http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg\_URL/Services-Censorship-Compliance-Index?OpenDocument">New Zealand government</a> has been <a href="http://publicaddress.net/6042#post6042">stealthily introducing</a> a centralised internet child-pornography specific filtering system. Voluntary for ISPs but not for their users, ISPs representing over 94\% of the market are already intending to join. Read the <a href="http://thomasbeagle.net/2009/07/09/nz-internet-filtering-faq/">general FAQ</a> and <a href="http://thomasbeagle.net/2009/07/12/nz-internet-filtering-technical-faq/">technical FAQ</a> about the proposed <a href="http://www.netclean.com/eng/products.aspx?subPage=4">Netclean Whitebox</a> implementation."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thomas Beagle writes " The New Zealand government has been stealthily introducing a centralised internet child-pornography specific filtering system .
Voluntary for ISPs but not for their users , ISPs representing over 94 \ % of the market are already intending to join .
Read the general FAQ and technical FAQ about the proposed Netclean Whitebox implementation .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thomas Beagle writes "The New Zealand government has been stealthily introducing a centralised internet child-pornography specific filtering system.
Voluntary for ISPs but not for their users, ISPs representing over 94\% of the market are already intending to join.
Read the general FAQ and technical FAQ about the proposed Netclean Whitebox implementation.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690695</id>
	<title>Re:I've never understood</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1247584740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, I'm the opposite.  I can understand why a normal person would not think through the issues beyond "we need to protect against child porn", misguided though it might be; it's an understandable response.  Politicians, on the other hand, are paid to think about exactly these kind of issues and the fact they don't care to exposes their moral bankruptcy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I 'm the opposite .
I can understand why a normal person would not think through the issues beyond " we need to protect against child porn " , misguided though it might be ; it 's an understandable response .
Politicians , on the other hand , are paid to think about exactly these kind of issues and the fact they do n't care to exposes their moral bankruptcy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I'm the opposite.
I can understand why a normal person would not think through the issues beyond "we need to protect against child porn", misguided though it might be; it's an understandable response.
Politicians, on the other hand, are paid to think about exactly these kind of issues and the fact they don't care to exposes their moral bankruptcy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690627</id>
	<title>informative Bitchbitch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247584440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>states that there the above is far the last night of that FreeBSD is see. The number , a Gproud member</htmltext>
<tokenext>states that there the above is far the last night of that FreeBSD is see .
The number , a Gproud member</tokentext>
<sentencetext>states that there the above is far the last night of that FreeBSD is see.
The number , a Gproud member</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691997</id>
	<title>Re:Governments love crime</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247590440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's always drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. YMMV, many countries are far less nanny states than mine (USA).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's always drugs , prostitution , gambling , etc .
YMMV , many countries are far less nanny states than mine ( USA ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's always drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc.
YMMV, many countries are far less nanny states than mine (USA).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28700653</id>
	<title>Re:Something to consider</title>
	<author>Macgrrl</author>
	<datestamp>1247599320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something else to consider, in the majority of adult porn, the models have given consent. In child porn, by definition the model is incapable of giving consent.</p><p>The concern with child porn is twin edged: filtering is intended to prevent distribution which is an effort to reduce demand for the product, however more important is to tackle production, because that's where the real harm is done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something else to consider , in the majority of adult porn , the models have given consent .
In child porn , by definition the model is incapable of giving consent.The concern with child porn is twin edged : filtering is intended to prevent distribution which is an effort to reduce demand for the product , however more important is to tackle production , because that 's where the real harm is done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something else to consider, in the majority of adult porn, the models have given consent.
In child porn, by definition the model is incapable of giving consent.The concern with child porn is twin edged: filtering is intended to prevent distribution which is an effort to reduce demand for the product, however more important is to tackle production, because that's where the real harm is done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690607</id>
	<title>Re:Oh god :(</title>
	<author>Cimexus</author>
	<datestamp>1247584320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes I have to admit the fact in the summary that ~94\% of ISPs are willing to implement this struck me as being really bizarre. I usually think of New Zealanders as our friends across the pond. That is, that despite our friendly jokes at each others' expense, we are very similar countries. But this is a night and day difference. In Australia the ISPs were basically all up in arms about the proposed filter, and it was in large part due to the Internet industry's concerns that that proposal was thankfully scrapped (or at least appears to be headed for certain defeat, at least in its current form). This was on ideological, as well as technical grounds - the ISPs know full well that any filter can be trivially circumvented through a variety of means, so it's basically useless, but yet would cost them (and thus their customers) a lot of money.</p><p>I wonder why NZ ISPs are so different in their opinion (at least as reported by this article)?</p><p>I sure hope the tech-savvy New Zealand public fights this in the same way we did here in Australia. These filters might start out as benign but there is massive potential for abuse there, and more to the point, I just generally don't like the idea of artificially constraining and slowing down what has been until this day a free and open network. We already pay a lot for connectivity down here due to our isolated geographical location<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... don't let them make it even slower/more expensive due to this crap.</p><p>The other reason you need to fight it is that if this gets successfully implemented there, it will be used as an example here and in other countries: "Look, NZ did it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... maybe we should?" That's a slippery slope we want to avoid if at all possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes I have to admit the fact in the summary that ~ 94 \ % of ISPs are willing to implement this struck me as being really bizarre .
I usually think of New Zealanders as our friends across the pond .
That is , that despite our friendly jokes at each others ' expense , we are very similar countries .
But this is a night and day difference .
In Australia the ISPs were basically all up in arms about the proposed filter , and it was in large part due to the Internet industry 's concerns that that proposal was thankfully scrapped ( or at least appears to be headed for certain defeat , at least in its current form ) .
This was on ideological , as well as technical grounds - the ISPs know full well that any filter can be trivially circumvented through a variety of means , so it 's basically useless , but yet would cost them ( and thus their customers ) a lot of money.I wonder why NZ ISPs are so different in their opinion ( at least as reported by this article ) ? I sure hope the tech-savvy New Zealand public fights this in the same way we did here in Australia .
These filters might start out as benign but there is massive potential for abuse there , and more to the point , I just generally do n't like the idea of artificially constraining and slowing down what has been until this day a free and open network .
We already pay a lot for connectivity down here due to our isolated geographical location ... do n't let them make it even slower/more expensive due to this crap.The other reason you need to fight it is that if this gets successfully implemented there , it will be used as an example here and in other countries : " Look , NZ did it ... maybe we should ?
" That 's a slippery slope we want to avoid if at all possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes I have to admit the fact in the summary that ~94\% of ISPs are willing to implement this struck me as being really bizarre.
I usually think of New Zealanders as our friends across the pond.
That is, that despite our friendly jokes at each others' expense, we are very similar countries.
But this is a night and day difference.
In Australia the ISPs were basically all up in arms about the proposed filter, and it was in large part due to the Internet industry's concerns that that proposal was thankfully scrapped (or at least appears to be headed for certain defeat, at least in its current form).
This was on ideological, as well as technical grounds - the ISPs know full well that any filter can be trivially circumvented through a variety of means, so it's basically useless, but yet would cost them (and thus their customers) a lot of money.I wonder why NZ ISPs are so different in their opinion (at least as reported by this article)?I sure hope the tech-savvy New Zealand public fights this in the same way we did here in Australia.
These filters might start out as benign but there is massive potential for abuse there, and more to the point, I just generally don't like the idea of artificially constraining and slowing down what has been until this day a free and open network.
We already pay a lot for connectivity down here due to our isolated geographical location ... don't let them make it even slower/more expensive due to this crap.The other reason you need to fight it is that if this gets successfully implemented there, it will be used as an example here and in other countries: "Look, NZ did it ... maybe we should?
" That's a slippery slope we want to avoid if at all possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505</id>
	<title>ISP's are in a tough spot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247583900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>As hard as it is to accept censorship, at the same time, do you really want to make a stand over child porn? It's a rough spot, because it does open the door to more censorship, and if it isn't stopped now it won't ever be able to be stopped, but at the same time this is a really sneaky way of doing it because of the subject mater and the general publics view on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As hard as it is to accept censorship , at the same time , do you really want to make a stand over child porn ?
It 's a rough spot , because it does open the door to more censorship , and if it is n't stopped now it wo n't ever be able to be stopped , but at the same time this is a really sneaky way of doing it because of the subject mater and the general publics view on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As hard as it is to accept censorship, at the same time, do you really want to make a stand over child porn?
It's a rough spot, because it does open the door to more censorship, and if it isn't stopped now it won't ever be able to be stopped, but at the same time this is a really sneaky way of doing it because of the subject mater and the general publics view on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691327</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbour</title>
	<author>badfish99</author>
	<datestamp>1247587620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. there's a much better way to get legal immunity. Set up a porn filtering business and sell it to the government, like these people have done. Then you can spend all day "checking web sites", and you won't get locked up: in fact, you'll get paid for it.</p><p>I don't know about New Zealand, but in the UK you might even be in line for a knighthood from the Queen, for "services to the child protection community".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
there 's a much better way to get legal immunity .
Set up a porn filtering business and sell it to the government , like these people have done .
Then you can spend all day " checking web sites " , and you wo n't get locked up : in fact , you 'll get paid for it.I do n't know about New Zealand , but in the UK you might even be in line for a knighthood from the Queen , for " services to the child protection community " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
there's a much better way to get legal immunity.
Set up a porn filtering business and sell it to the government, like these people have done.
Then you can spend all day "checking web sites", and you won't get locked up: in fact, you'll get paid for it.I don't know about New Zealand, but in the UK you might even be in line for a knighthood from the Queen, for "services to the child protection community".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28695355</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting technical details</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247562120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Major whoops. Not only do they admit it's easy to get around it, they helpfully give you the name of three services to use.</p></div><p>One of the nicer things about NZ: they're legally obliged to give this information, even if it's sort of awkward.</p><p>Thomas Beagle (who compiled all this info using Official Information Act requests and is my flatmate) currently has an unfinished request that they publish the list of blocked sites. Originally they refused, but he's complained to the Ombudsman and it's entirely possible they'll be required to make it available.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Major whoops .
Not only do they admit it 's easy to get around it , they helpfully give you the name of three services to use.One of the nicer things about NZ : they 're legally obliged to give this information , even if it 's sort of awkward.Thomas Beagle ( who compiled all this info using Official Information Act requests and is my flatmate ) currently has an unfinished request that they publish the list of blocked sites .
Originally they refused , but he 's complained to the Ombudsman and it 's entirely possible they 'll be required to make it available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Major whoops.
Not only do they admit it's easy to get around it, they helpfully give you the name of three services to use.One of the nicer things about NZ: they're legally obliged to give this information, even if it's sort of awkward.Thomas Beagle (who compiled all this info using Official Information Act requests and is my flatmate) currently has an unfinished request that they publish the list of blocked sites.
Originally they refused, but he's complained to the Ombudsman and it's entirely possible they'll be required to make it available.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690659</id>
	<title>Won't somebody think of the children?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247584680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Won't somebody think of the children? I mean, come on, we're adults and we have easy access to our adult porn on teh tubes, but what about the kiddies, how are they going to access their porn if these filters are put in?</p><p>Or am I misunderstanding the concept of kiddie porn?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't somebody think of the children ?
I mean , come on , we 're adults and we have easy access to our adult porn on teh tubes , but what about the kiddies , how are they going to access their porn if these filters are put in ? Or am I misunderstanding the concept of kiddie porn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't somebody think of the children?
I mean, come on, we're adults and we have easy access to our adult porn on teh tubes, but what about the kiddies, how are they going to access their porn if these filters are put in?Or am I misunderstanding the concept of kiddie porn?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693101</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's are in a tough spot</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1247595000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have documents that protect individual liberties against the good intentions of the ignorant masses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have documents that protect individual liberties against the good intentions of the ignorant masses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have documents that protect individual liberties against the good intentions of the ignorant masses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28697415</id>
	<title>They should just track it better.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247571120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By doing this they are just forcing the Pedo-porn lovers to use some alternative.  Why not use the technology to track it instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By doing this they are just forcing the Pedo-porn lovers to use some alternative .
Why not use the technology to track it instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By doing this they are just forcing the Pedo-porn lovers to use some alternative.
Why not use the technology to track it instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694085</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's are in a tough spot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247598960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a framing issue. Politicians frame it as "protection from X" (Where X is very very scary in almost everyone's perception. Think child porn, terrorists, drug dealers coming for your children etc.)</p><p>Another possible framing is "CENSORSHIP in the name of x" where the act of censorship is seen for what it is, an act of government taking control over everyone's information flow, the first step to a future of "government-approved news" etc. A big invisible hand that can and will make inconvenient information disappear.</p><p>Yes, it is a tough choice, if you accept the government's framing. It's quite an easy one if you don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a framing issue .
Politicians frame it as " protection from X " ( Where X is very very scary in almost everyone 's perception .
Think child porn , terrorists , drug dealers coming for your children etc .
) Another possible framing is " CENSORSHIP in the name of x " where the act of censorship is seen for what it is , an act of government taking control over everyone 's information flow , the first step to a future of " government-approved news " etc .
A big invisible hand that can and will make inconvenient information disappear.Yes , it is a tough choice , if you accept the government 's framing .
It 's quite an easy one if you do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a framing issue.
Politicians frame it as "protection from X" (Where X is very very scary in almost everyone's perception.
Think child porn, terrorists, drug dealers coming for your children etc.
)Another possible framing is "CENSORSHIP in the name of x" where the act of censorship is seen for what it is, an act of government taking control over everyone's information flow, the first step to a future of "government-approved news" etc.
A big invisible hand that can and will make inconvenient information disappear.Yes, it is a tough choice, if you accept the government's framing.
It's quite an easy one if you don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691279</id>
	<title>Re:Safe Harbour</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1247587380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea of "common carrier" status (as opposed to "safe harbour", which applies to copyright) is that the liability for actions is passed downstream to the users, where, IMHO, it rightly belongs. It's the user's actions that caused the offence, and the ISP has no feasible capability to prevent them from causing those offences. It can't apply to people because there's no-one downstream of the end user (hence the name), so there's nowhere to pass the liability, nor would we really want to, since we've already found the culprit.</p><p>It's certainly not supposed to be a "get out of jail free" option for anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea of " common carrier " status ( as opposed to " safe harbour " , which applies to copyright ) is that the liability for actions is passed downstream to the users , where , IMHO , it rightly belongs .
It 's the user 's actions that caused the offence , and the ISP has no feasible capability to prevent them from causing those offences .
It ca n't apply to people because there 's no-one downstream of the end user ( hence the name ) , so there 's nowhere to pass the liability , nor would we really want to , since we 've already found the culprit.It 's certainly not supposed to be a " get out of jail free " option for anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea of "common carrier" status (as opposed to "safe harbour", which applies to copyright) is that the liability for actions is passed downstream to the users, where, IMHO, it rightly belongs.
It's the user's actions that caused the offence, and the ISP has no feasible capability to prevent them from causing those offences.
It can't apply to people because there's no-one downstream of the end user (hence the name), so there's nowhere to pass the liability, nor would we really want to, since we've already found the culprit.It's certainly not supposed to be a "get out of jail free" option for anyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694061</id>
	<title>I don't see what the issue is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247598840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I own an ISP and I want to opt into this in order to prevent some child porn from being distributed, why don't I have the right to do so? It looks like the ISPs are being up-front about it and not hiding what they are doing.</p><p>As much as people on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. complain about this sort of thing, I think that in practical terms, this makes the world a better place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I own an ISP and I want to opt into this in order to prevent some child porn from being distributed , why do n't I have the right to do so ?
It looks like the ISPs are being up-front about it and not hiding what they are doing.As much as people on / .
complain about this sort of thing , I think that in practical terms , this makes the world a better place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I own an ISP and I want to opt into this in order to prevent some child porn from being distributed, why don't I have the right to do so?
It looks like the ISPs are being up-front about it and not hiding what they are doing.As much as people on /.
complain about this sort of thing, I think that in practical terms, this makes the world a better place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691165</id>
	<title>The Netclean Whitebox software proposed ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247586900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the FAQ:</p><p>"What if the website uses HTTPS (secure HTTP)?</p><p>If the website uses https (e.g. as used for internet banking or online shopping), the filter server can&#226;(TM)t examine the request to see what website it is going to on the target internet address.</p><p>This means the the filter server must block all https websites on a filtered internet address. This will interrupt service to any website that needs to use a secure connection."</p><p>I can see that working out well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the FAQ : " What if the website uses HTTPS ( secure HTTP ) ? If the website uses https ( e.g .
as used for internet banking or online shopping ) , the filter server can   ( TM ) t examine the request to see what website it is going to on the target internet address.This means the the filter server must block all https websites on a filtered internet address .
This will interrupt service to any website that needs to use a secure connection .
" I can see that working out well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the FAQ:"What if the website uses HTTPS (secure HTTP)?If the website uses https (e.g.
as used for internet banking or online shopping), the filter server canâ(TM)t examine the request to see what website it is going to on the target internet address.This means the the filter server must block all https websites on a filtered internet address.
This will interrupt service to any website that needs to use a secure connection.
"I can see that working out well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28697313</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247570640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; It is well documented that incidence of rape, and violence in general, dropped dramatically with the popularization of porn.</p><p>[citation needed]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It is well documented that incidence of rape , and violence in general , dropped dramatically with the popularization of porn .
[ citation needed ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; It is well documented that incidence of rape, and violence in general, dropped dramatically with the popularization of porn.
[citation needed]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694005</id>
	<title>The domino theory</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1247598660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Filtering of CP leads to filtering of obscenity, leads to filtering of "objectionable content," leads to filtering of government dissent...</i> </p><p>The slipperly slope argument reduces everything to extremes of action or inaction.</p><p>That is a receipe for political impotence.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Filtering of CP leads to filtering of obscenity , leads to filtering of " objectionable content , " leads to filtering of government dissent... The slipperly slope argument reduces everything to extremes of action or inaction.That is a receipe for political impotence .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Filtering of CP leads to filtering of obscenity, leads to filtering of "objectionable content," leads to filtering of government dissent... The slipperly slope argument reduces everything to extremes of action or inaction.That is a receipe for political impotence.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690567</id>
	<title>It's inevitable.</title>
	<author>OpenGLFan</author>
	<datestamp>1247584200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Post-Iran, governments see that controlling the Internet is vital to controlling their population.<br>ISPs can declare 3rd-party VOIP and other heavy-usage models as violating the filtering rules (whether that makes sense or not) and kick them off the network.<br>Large businesses prefer that customers be reached through communication channels they control and understand.  (TV, radio, print.)</p><p>Governments, ISPs, and businesses support it.  Nobody important opposes it.  (You are not important.)  Why are we surprised that it is happening?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Post-Iran , governments see that controlling the Internet is vital to controlling their population.ISPs can declare 3rd-party VOIP and other heavy-usage models as violating the filtering rules ( whether that makes sense or not ) and kick them off the network.Large businesses prefer that customers be reached through communication channels they control and understand .
( TV , radio , print .
) Governments , ISPs , and businesses support it .
Nobody important opposes it .
( You are not important .
) Why are we surprised that it is happening ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Post-Iran, governments see that controlling the Internet is vital to controlling their population.ISPs can declare 3rd-party VOIP and other heavy-usage models as violating the filtering rules (whether that makes sense or not) and kick them off the network.Large businesses prefer that customers be reached through communication channels they control and understand.
(TV, radio, print.
)Governments, ISPs, and businesses support it.
Nobody important opposes it.
(You are not important.
)  Why are we surprised that it is happening?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690833</id>
	<title>Protect the imaginary children!</title>
	<author>QCompson</author>
	<datestamp>1247585400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the FAQ:<p><div class="quote"><p>What type of material is censored?

The trial scheme was used to filter child pornography including video, photos, <b>stories and drawings</b>. Other illegal material (as defined by New Zealand law) is not filtered.</p></div><p>Stories and drawings.  Because icky thoughts must be banned.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the FAQ : What type of material is censored ?
The trial scheme was used to filter child pornography including video , photos , stories and drawings .
Other illegal material ( as defined by New Zealand law ) is not filtered.Stories and drawings .
Because icky thoughts must be banned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the FAQ:What type of material is censored?
The trial scheme was used to filter child pornography including video, photos, stories and drawings.
Other illegal material (as defined by New Zealand law) is not filtered.Stories and drawings.
Because icky thoughts must be banned.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28705063</id>
	<title>Re:As a NZ citizen...</title>
	<author>professorguy</author>
	<datestamp>1247680980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Any attempt to filter content inappropriately would cause a public uproar</p></div><p>Um, the list is secret.  How would they know?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If they abuse the system then it can be removed</p></div><p>Um, the list is secret.  How would you know?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any attempt to filter content inappropriately would cause a public uproarUm , the list is secret .
How would they know ? If they abuse the system then it can be removedUm , the list is secret .
How would you know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any attempt to filter content inappropriately would cause a public uproarUm, the list is secret.
How would they know?If they abuse the system then it can be removedUm, the list is secret.
How would you know?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28699545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693045</id>
	<title>Re:Good to hear</title>
	<author>DM9290</author>
	<datestamp>1247594760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, it's best that these photos and videos continue to be produced.  At least until everyone finally agrees to make stories and drawings just as illegal.</p></div><p>stories and drawings are just as illegal in Canada.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's best that these photos and videos continue to be produced .
At least until everyone finally agrees to make stories and drawings just as illegal.stories and drawings are just as illegal in Canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's best that these photos and videos continue to be produced.
At least until everyone finally agrees to make stories and drawings just as illegal.stories and drawings are just as illegal in Canada.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690557</id>
	<title>Ireland got it worse yesterday</title>
	<author>ionix5891</author>
	<datestamp>1247584200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>small bit offtopic</p><p>but theres no mention on slashdot of the new 1984 style big brother law coming in in Ireland<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p><p><a href="http://www.independent.ie/national-news/all-email-text-and-phone-records-to-be-kept-for-2-years-1820026.html" title="independent.ie">http://www.independent.ie/national-news/all-email-text-and-phone-records-to-be-kept-for-2-years-1820026.html</a> [independent.ie]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>small bit offtopicbut theres no mention on slashdot of the new 1984 style big brother law coming in in Ireland : ( http : //www.independent.ie/national-news/all-email-text-and-phone-records-to-be-kept-for-2-years-1820026.html [ independent.ie ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>small bit offtopicbut theres no mention on slashdot of the new 1984 style big brother law coming in in Ireland :(http://www.independent.ie/national-news/all-email-text-and-phone-records-to-be-kept-for-2-years-1820026.html [independent.ie]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693895</id>
	<title>Re:Protect the imaginary children!</title>
	<author>SlashDread</author>
	<datestamp>1247598240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>bad news for the Bros Grimm.... I mean, cmon, little red riding hood and a big bad wolf? That is some sick stuff! Before you know it, all children are into menstrual fetishes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>bad news for the Bros Grimm.... I mean , cmon , little red riding hood and a big bad wolf ?
That is some sick stuff !
Before you know it , all children are into menstrual fetishes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bad news for the Bros Grimm.... I mean, cmon, little red riding hood and a big bad wolf?
That is some sick stuff!
Before you know it, all children are into menstrual fetishes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28692611</id>
	<title>Re:Good to hear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247593080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In fact the blocked sites can use the service to block https sites belonging to other entities since the list is domain based, not IP based. They'll need a whitelist to prevent that from happening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact the blocked sites can use the service to block https sites belonging to other entities since the list is domain based , not IP based .
They 'll need a whitelist to prevent that from happening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact the blocked sites can use the service to block https sites belonging to other entities since the list is domain based, not IP based.
They'll need a whitelist to prevent that from happening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693529</id>
	<title>Writing the geek out of the political equation.</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1247596620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Where would your government be without childporn? If it didn't exist, the government would surely invent it</i> </p><p>But it does exist - as part of the sex trade in children - and it is <b>not</b> an invention of the government:</p><p><a href="http://www.unicef.org/crc/index\_30204.html" title="unicef.org">UNICEF - Convention of the Rights of the Child - Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography</a> [unicef.org] </p><p> Ratified 2002. By New Zealand in 2000.</p><p>To provide some perspective: the "Optional Protocol" also forbids the use of children in combat: In plain English, the Convention bars the enslavement and exploitation of children by both private individuals and the state.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where would your government be without childporn ?
If it did n't exist , the government would surely invent it But it does exist - as part of the sex trade in children - and it is not an invention of the government : UNICEF - Convention of the Rights of the Child - Optional Protocol on the sale of children , child prostitution and child pornography [ unicef.org ] Ratified 2002 .
By New Zealand in 2000.To provide some perspective : the " Optional Protocol " also forbids the use of children in combat : In plain English , the Convention bars the enslavement and exploitation of children by both private individuals and the state .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where would your government be without childporn?
If it didn't exist, the government would surely invent it But it does exist - as part of the sex trade in children - and it is not an invention of the government:UNICEF - Convention of the Rights of the Child - Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography [unicef.org]  Ratified 2002.
By New Zealand in 2000.To provide some perspective: the "Optional Protocol" also forbids the use of children in combat: In plain English, the Convention bars the enslavement and exploitation of children by both private individuals and the state.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28697787</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting technical details</title>
	<author>kzieli</author>
	<datestamp>1247573520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes well. the obvious conclusion, If the police find said software on your system then you must be breaking the law. After all honest citizens have no need for software that bypasses the internet filters, seeing as we only filter out things that an honest law abiding citizen would not want to look at</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes well .
the obvious conclusion , If the police find said software on your system then you must be breaking the law .
After all honest citizens have no need for software that bypasses the internet filters , seeing as we only filter out things that an honest law abiding citizen would not want to look at</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes well.
the obvious conclusion, If the police find said software on your system then you must be breaking the law.
After all honest citizens have no need for software that bypasses the internet filters, seeing as we only filter out things that an honest law abiding citizen would not want to look at</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28692855</id>
	<title>Re:Governments love crime</title>
	<author>garry\_g</author>
	<datestamp>1247594040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Where would your government be without childporn? If it didn't exist, the government would surely invent it.</i><br>What do you mean, "would surely invent it"? They <em>are</em> inventing it, at least as far as numbers and facts are concerned<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... in Germany, "Zensursula" von der Leyen has come up with statistics about the amount of commercial Childporn distributed via Internet, none of which she to date has been able to actually back with any facts. Additionally, the "large number of countries" without legislation against child porn supposedly was the reason filtering (useless, as it's based on faking DNS results) is based on a year-old study, which on top of the age is also containing information that is plain wrong (e.g., if a country does not have specific laws against child porns, it is counted, even if it has outlawed <b>all</b> porn!). Upon examination of said list, it was found that out of almost 100 countries listed, only like 9 indeed didn't have laws against child porn. Of those, nearly all are well down on the technological scale, making distribution of child porn d@mn near impossible from there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Of course, what politician can resist finally getting his wet dreams of actively taking charge of all of the country's citizens access to free information fulfilled?</p><p>Politics suck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where would your government be without childporn ?
If it did n't exist , the government would surely invent it.What do you mean , " would surely invent it " ?
They are inventing it , at least as far as numbers and facts are concerned ... in Germany , " Zensursula " von der Leyen has come up with statistics about the amount of commercial Childporn distributed via Internet , none of which she to date has been able to actually back with any facts .
Additionally , the " large number of countries " without legislation against child porn supposedly was the reason filtering ( useless , as it 's based on faking DNS results ) is based on a year-old study , which on top of the age is also containing information that is plain wrong ( e.g. , if a country does not have specific laws against child porns , it is counted , even if it has outlawed all porn ! ) .
Upon examination of said list , it was found that out of almost 100 countries listed , only like 9 indeed did n't have laws against child porn .
Of those , nearly all are well down on the technological scale , making distribution of child porn d @ mn near impossible from there ...Of course , what politician can resist finally getting his wet dreams of actively taking charge of all of the country 's citizens access to free information fulfilled ? Politics suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where would your government be without childporn?
If it didn't exist, the government would surely invent it.What do you mean, "would surely invent it"?
They are inventing it, at least as far as numbers and facts are concerned ... in Germany, "Zensursula" von der Leyen has come up with statistics about the amount of commercial Childporn distributed via Internet, none of which she to date has been able to actually back with any facts.
Additionally, the "large number of countries" without legislation against child porn supposedly was the reason filtering (useless, as it's based on faking DNS results) is based on a year-old study, which on top of the age is also containing information that is plain wrong (e.g., if a country does not have specific laws against child porns, it is counted, even if it has outlawed all porn!).
Upon examination of said list, it was found that out of almost 100 countries listed, only like 9 indeed didn't have laws against child porn.
Of those, nearly all are well down on the technological scale, making distribution of child porn d@mn near impossible from there ...Of course, what politician can resist finally getting his wet dreams of actively taking charge of all of the country's citizens access to free information fulfilled?Politics suck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693779</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's are in a tough spot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247597700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole reason the government chose child porn is because they're betting on no one being willing to take a stand over it. Besides, it's censoring ship you're making a stand over, regardless what they want to make it out to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole reason the government chose child porn is because they 're betting on no one being willing to take a stand over it .
Besides , it 's censoring ship you 're making a stand over , regardless what they want to make it out to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole reason the government chose child porn is because they're betting on no one being willing to take a stand over it.
Besides, it's censoring ship you're making a stand over, regardless what they want to make it out to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694365</id>
	<title>Re:Governments love crime</title>
	<author>computational super</author>
	<datestamp>1247600220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The biggest mistake you can make as a libertarian is to assume you represent the people.</i>
<p>Sigh... not sure if you're trolling there or just making a bitter point - but a point you have, there.  It never ceases to amaze me how many people believe, after centuries and centuries of contrary evidence, that more government will make their lives better.  It's the same on both sides (and there really are only two sides, since we libertarians seem to represent a statistically insignificant sliver of the population) - the only reason we have any freedom at all is because both sides can't seem to agree on what the government should control.  Fortunately (from the perspective of the anti-libertarians) they finally seem to have put aside their differences and agreed to just control everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest mistake you can make as a libertarian is to assume you represent the people .
Sigh... not sure if you 're trolling there or just making a bitter point - but a point you have , there .
It never ceases to amaze me how many people believe , after centuries and centuries of contrary evidence , that more government will make their lives better .
It 's the same on both sides ( and there really are only two sides , since we libertarians seem to represent a statistically insignificant sliver of the population ) - the only reason we have any freedom at all is because both sides ca n't seem to agree on what the government should control .
Fortunately ( from the perspective of the anti-libertarians ) they finally seem to have put aside their differences and agreed to just control everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest mistake you can make as a libertarian is to assume you represent the people.
Sigh... not sure if you're trolling there or just making a bitter point - but a point you have, there.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people believe, after centuries and centuries of contrary evidence, that more government will make their lives better.
It's the same on both sides (and there really are only two sides, since we libertarians seem to represent a statistically insignificant sliver of the population) - the only reason we have any freedom at all is because both sides can't seem to agree on what the government should control.
Fortunately (from the perspective of the anti-libertarians) they finally seem to have put aside their differences and agreed to just control everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691063</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691007</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's are in a tough spot</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1247586120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As hard as it is to accept censorship, at the same time, do you really want to make a stand over child porn?</p></div> </blockquote><p>No, you make a stand over centralized filtering. Everybody knows that it won't be limited to child porn.  They just need some reminders.  Point at how every other country that has head down this road, has failed to limit their filters to child porn, and ask how many billions of dollars the NZ government is going to spend to solve the (currently) unsolvable problem of computers not knowing the difference between porn and non-porn ("is this photo of a nude person, <em>erotic?</em>"), and the computer's lousy job of guessing peoples' ages ("is this model 18 years old, or only 16?").</p><p>Ask people if the <em>relatively</em> easy problem of finally ending The Spam Problem has been solved.  (Show me you can reliably classify text, and then I'll give you images to work on.)</p><p>If the NZ economy is able to support an Apollo Project of strong AI, then I think they're fucking awesome.  Just make sure the taxpayers understand that either <em>that</em> is what they are committing 50\% of their GDP to, or else the filter people are lying to them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As hard as it is to accept censorship , at the same time , do you really want to make a stand over child porn ?
No , you make a stand over centralized filtering .
Everybody knows that it wo n't be limited to child porn .
They just need some reminders .
Point at how every other country that has head down this road , has failed to limit their filters to child porn , and ask how many billions of dollars the NZ government is going to spend to solve the ( currently ) unsolvable problem of computers not knowing the difference between porn and non-porn ( " is this photo of a nude person , erotic ?
" ) , and the computer 's lousy job of guessing peoples ' ages ( " is this model 18 years old , or only 16 ?
" ) .Ask people if the relatively easy problem of finally ending The Spam Problem has been solved .
( Show me you can reliably classify text , and then I 'll give you images to work on .
) If the NZ economy is able to support an Apollo Project of strong AI , then I think they 're fucking awesome .
Just make sure the taxpayers understand that either that is what they are committing 50 \ % of their GDP to , or else the filter people are lying to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As hard as it is to accept censorship, at the same time, do you really want to make a stand over child porn?
No, you make a stand over centralized filtering.
Everybody knows that it won't be limited to child porn.
They just need some reminders.
Point at how every other country that has head down this road, has failed to limit their filters to child porn, and ask how many billions of dollars the NZ government is going to spend to solve the (currently) unsolvable problem of computers not knowing the difference between porn and non-porn ("is this photo of a nude person, erotic?
"), and the computer's lousy job of guessing peoples' ages ("is this model 18 years old, or only 16?
").Ask people if the relatively easy problem of finally ending The Spam Problem has been solved.
(Show me you can reliably classify text, and then I'll give you images to work on.
)If the NZ economy is able to support an Apollo Project of strong AI, then I think they're fucking awesome.
Just make sure the taxpayers understand that either that is what they are committing 50\% of their GDP to, or else the filter people are lying to them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690427</id>
	<title>Oh god :(</title>
	<author>DiSKiLLeR</author>
	<datestamp>1247583480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We only just got rid of this laughably insane idea in Australia... here the ISP's refused to co-operate.</p><p>Actually, no, sorry, a few <b>did</b> co-operate, just so they could show the govt how laughably infeasible it was!</p><p>And now New Zealand introduces internet filtering, just before I plan to move there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We only just got rid of this laughably insane idea in Australia... here the ISP 's refused to co-operate.Actually , no , sorry , a few did co-operate , just so they could show the govt how laughably infeasible it was ! And now New Zealand introduces internet filtering , just before I plan to move there : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We only just got rid of this laughably insane idea in Australia... here the ISP's refused to co-operate.Actually, no, sorry, a few did co-operate, just so they could show the govt how laughably infeasible it was!And now New Zealand introduces internet filtering, just before I plan to move there :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691361</id>
	<title>Re:Oh god :(</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1247587800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We are already well on the way to establishing the Pirate Party of Australia (http://ppau.info/)</p></div></blockquote><p>Groan. They'll have to inject some sense into their copyright policy before I even consider voting for them. Removing filters is very good, but not nearly enough to overlook the gaping voids of common sense riddled throughout their policies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We are already well on the way to establishing the Pirate Party of Australia ( http : //ppau.info/ ) Groan .
They 'll have to inject some sense into their copyright policy before I even consider voting for them .
Removing filters is very good , but not nearly enough to overlook the gaping voids of common sense riddled throughout their policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are already well on the way to establishing the Pirate Party of Australia (http://ppau.info/)Groan.
They'll have to inject some sense into their copyright policy before I even consider voting for them.
Removing filters is very good, but not nearly enough to overlook the gaping voids of common sense riddled throughout their policies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28695059</id>
	<title>New Zealand's internet slowed down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247604000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If New Zealand's internet is slowed down any more, it will be close to stopping<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If New Zealand 's internet is slowed down any more , it will be close to stopping : - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If New Zealand's internet is slowed down any more, it will be close to stopping :-(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690371</id>
	<title>Good to hear</title>
	<author>Jugalator</author>
	<datestamp>1247583360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially as these filters are <a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/797\_domains\_on\_Finnish\_Internet\_censorship\_list\%2C\_including\_censorship\_critic\%2C\_2008" title="wikileaks.org">never misused</a> [wikileaks.org] for other things than child pornography for convenience, when they're in place and all.</p><p>How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead? Or was that too straightforward and precise?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially as these filters are never misused [ wikileaks.org ] for other things than child pornography for convenience , when they 're in place and all.How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead ?
Or was that too straightforward and precise ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially as these filters are never misused [wikileaks.org] for other things than child pornography for convenience, when they're in place and all.How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead?
Or was that too straightforward and precise?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28699869</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see what the issue is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247590620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I own an ISP and I want to opt into this in order to prevent some child porn from being distributed, why don't I have the right to do so?</p></div><p>Technically? Not a problem. In reality? The ISP does not control what gets blocked. This can - and will - mean that legal sites may be accidentally blocked, legal sites that someone in the government disagrees with / dislikes will be blocked, etc. </p><p>It's a classic case of the slippery-slope in two ways: </p><p>1) The more ISPs that voluntarily adopt this filtering, the stronger the case for mandatory adoption.</p><p>2) While it's put in-place to "protect the populous", once it is in-place it's easy to find excuses to expand the scope of the filtering, which combined with lack of significant oversight results in a system highly vulnerable to abuse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I own an ISP and I want to opt into this in order to prevent some child porn from being distributed , why do n't I have the right to do so ? Technically ?
Not a problem .
In reality ?
The ISP does not control what gets blocked .
This can - and will - mean that legal sites may be accidentally blocked , legal sites that someone in the government disagrees with / dislikes will be blocked , etc .
It 's a classic case of the slippery-slope in two ways : 1 ) The more ISPs that voluntarily adopt this filtering , the stronger the case for mandatory adoption.2 ) While it 's put in-place to " protect the populous " , once it is in-place it 's easy to find excuses to expand the scope of the filtering , which combined with lack of significant oversight results in a system highly vulnerable to abuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I own an ISP and I want to opt into this in order to prevent some child porn from being distributed, why don't I have the right to do so?Technically?
Not a problem.
In reality?
The ISP does not control what gets blocked.
This can - and will - mean that legal sites may be accidentally blocked, legal sites that someone in the government disagrees with / dislikes will be blocked, etc.
It's a classic case of the slippery-slope in two ways: 1) The more ISPs that voluntarily adopt this filtering, the stronger the case for mandatory adoption.2) While it's put in-place to "protect the populous", once it is in-place it's easy to find excuses to expand the scope of the filtering, which combined with lack of significant oversight results in a system highly vulnerable to abuse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691473</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's are in a tough spot</title>
	<author>PontifexPrimus</author>
	<datestamp>1247588340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.<br>
- H. L. Mencken</htmltext>
<tokenext>The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one 's time defending scoundrels .
For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed , and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all .
- H. L. Mencken</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels.
For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
- H. L. Mencken</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690739</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's are in a tough spot</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1247584980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tough shit.  No-one said civil liberties were easy to take or defend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tough shit .
No-one said civil liberties were easy to take or defend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tough shit.
No-one said civil liberties were easy to take or defend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690819</id>
	<title>Re:Somebody's getting paid to look at child porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247585340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That's gonna make that first date "and what do you do?" conversation a little awkward.</p></div></blockquote><p>"I protect the country from pedophiles!  So, BTW, you're <em>really</em> 18?  You don't look it."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's gon na make that first date " and what do you do ?
" conversation a little awkward .
" I protect the country from pedophiles !
So , BTW , you 're really 18 ?
You do n't look it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's gonna make that first date "and what do you do?
" conversation a little awkward.
"I protect the country from pedophiles!
So, BTW, you're really 18?
You don't look it.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691079</id>
	<title>Re:Good to hear</title>
	<author>macbeth66</author>
	<datestamp>1247586360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead? Or was that too straightforward and precise?</p></div><p>That would involve time, money and intelligence.  Something that governments, by definition, are always in short supply of.  Politicians ALWAYS take the easy way and most Press friendly route.  They will do what looks good now, even if they know it will be a failure later.  Hopefully during the next administration.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead ?
Or was that too straightforward and precise ? That would involve time , money and intelligence .
Something that governments , by definition , are always in short supply of .
Politicians ALWAYS take the easy way and most Press friendly route .
They will do what looks good now , even if they know it will be a failure later .
Hopefully during the next administration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead?
Or was that too straightforward and precise?That would involve time, money and intelligence.
Something that governments, by definition, are always in short supply of.
Politicians ALWAYS take the easy way and most Press friendly route.
They will do what looks good now, even if they know it will be a failure later.
Hopefully during the next administration.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690565</id>
	<title>mynuts won, # FUDging, hypenosys &amp; censorship</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247584200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>easy enough to do when one's conscience is directed buy some randoidian lazy is fair mentality.</p><p>looks like our hero is getting steamrolled into continued fatal compromise.</p><p>&amp; yes, this post will be deleted/permanently 'hidden' within moments. eye gas that's how robbIE has to doo (as in poop) it now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>easy enough to do when one 's conscience is directed buy some randoidian lazy is fair mentality.looks like our hero is getting steamrolled into continued fatal compromise.&amp; yes , this post will be deleted/permanently 'hidden ' within moments .
eye gas that 's how robbIE has to doo ( as in poop ) it now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>easy enough to do when one's conscience is directed buy some randoidian lazy is fair mentality.looks like our hero is getting steamrolled into continued fatal compromise.&amp; yes, this post will be deleted/permanently 'hidden' within moments.
eye gas that's how robbIE has to doo (as in poop) it now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28700225</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting technical details</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247594100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a blog you're quoting, not the official release. That's because there is no official release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a blog you 're quoting , not the official release .
That 's because there is no official release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a blog you're quoting, not the official release.
That's because there is no official release.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690515</id>
	<title>For the love of my daughter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247583900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.starvingformygirl.com/" title="starvingformygirl.com" rel="nofollow">Why else would I starve for 16 days?</a> [starvingformygirl.com]</p><p>&lt;aside&gt;Yeah, I hate comment spam also, but this is a decent cause. I could have just posted another 1.2.3...Profit joke and been modded funny!&lt;/aside&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why else would I starve for 16 days ?
[ starvingformygirl.com ] Yeah , I hate comment spam also , but this is a decent cause .
I could have just posted another 1.2.3...Profit joke and been modded funny !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why else would I starve for 16 days?
[starvingformygirl.com]Yeah, I hate comment spam also, but this is a decent cause.
I could have just posted another 1.2.3...Profit joke and been modded funny!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28699545</id>
	<title>As a NZ citizen...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247587380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have absolutely no problem with this.  At all.</p><p>NZ governments are pretty trustworthy and free from corruption.  I don't share the (apparently common view here) that any ability to filter content must automatically and inevitably lead to abuse.  Any attempt to filter content inappropriately  would cause a public uproar.</p><p>It seems to me that Americans do not trust their governments.  I don't think that most NZ'rs are that paranoid.  So long as the police and the government prove that they are using the system as it was intended then I think they need to be trusted to do their jobs.  If they abuse the system then it can be removed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have absolutely no problem with this .
At all.NZ governments are pretty trustworthy and free from corruption .
I do n't share the ( apparently common view here ) that any ability to filter content must automatically and inevitably lead to abuse .
Any attempt to filter content inappropriately would cause a public uproar.It seems to me that Americans do not trust their governments .
I do n't think that most NZ'rs are that paranoid .
So long as the police and the government prove that they are using the system as it was intended then I think they need to be trusted to do their jobs .
If they abuse the system then it can be removed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have absolutely no problem with this.
At all.NZ governments are pretty trustworthy and free from corruption.
I don't share the (apparently common view here) that any ability to filter content must automatically and inevitably lead to abuse.
Any attempt to filter content inappropriately  would cause a public uproar.It seems to me that Americans do not trust their governments.
I don't think that most NZ'rs are that paranoid.
So long as the police and the government prove that they are using the system as it was intended then I think they need to be trusted to do their jobs.
If they abuse the system then it can be removed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691827</id>
	<title>Benjamin Franklin</title>
	<author>DJRumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1247589720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Ben Franklin</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety , deserve neither Liberty nor Safety .
" Ben Franklin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
"

Ben Franklin</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28697271</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see what the issue is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247570460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issues are:</p><p>1. The list is secret.<br>2. The technology can be trivially bypassed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issues are : 1 .
The list is secret.2 .
The technology can be trivially bypassed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issues are:1.
The list is secret.2.
The technology can be trivially bypassed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28695729</id>
	<title>Dangerously vulnerable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247563740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the technical faq it seems the filter server would be particularily vulernable to DDOS attacks by spamming banned addresses: <i>"The filter server uses BGP over the secure tunnel to advertise to the ISPs a route to each individual filtered internet address (a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/32 route). This tells the ISPs to send all traffic for that internet address to the filter server."</i>
<br> <br>
For their own sake I hope they take steps to remedy this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the technical faq it seems the filter server would be particularily vulernable to DDOS attacks by spamming banned addresses : " The filter server uses BGP over the secure tunnel to advertise to the ISPs a route to each individual filtered internet address ( a /32 route ) .
This tells the ISPs to send all traffic for that internet address to the filter server .
" For their own sake I hope they take steps to remedy this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the technical faq it seems the filter server would be particularily vulernable to DDOS attacks by spamming banned addresses: "The filter server uses BGP over the secure tunnel to advertise to the ISPs a route to each individual filtered internet address (a /32 route).
This tells the ISPs to send all traffic for that internet address to the filter server.
"
 
For their own sake I hope they take steps to remedy this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28699447</id>
	<title>Re:Oh god :(</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247586720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We've got one, <a href="http://www.pirateparty.co.nz/" title="pirateparty.co.nz" rel="nofollow">http://www.pirateparty.co.nz/</a> [pirateparty.co.nz]</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've got one , http : //www.pirateparty.co.nz/ [ pirateparty.co.nz ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've got one, http://www.pirateparty.co.nz/ [pirateparty.co.nz]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690453</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28699625</id>
	<title>Re:Oh god :(</title>
	<author>Techman83</author>
	<datestamp>1247588280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't jump for joy yet, as it isn't quite dead. Alledgedgly Conroy has to wait 6-8 weeks for the results to come through from the ISPs that were part of the trial. And some of those ISPs have a vested interest in providing positive results as that is what their business is all about. Eg. <a href="http://www.webshield.net.au/htm3/contents\_faq.htm#q12" title="webshield.net.au">Webshield FAQ: Does WebShield filtering slow my connection down?</a> [webshield.net.au] and if you look at this page <a href="http://www.webshield.net.au/htm3/frame\_c\_filtering.htm" title="webshield.net.au">WebShield Filtering</a> [webshield.net.au], this statement makes me laugh and die a little inside at the same time "There are over 65,536 communication ports on the Internet. Only 5 are essential. WebShield can block any combination on a per user basis." which is a blatent lie, if you look at the page they include FTP, which uses a random ports! (Connect on 21, data comes back on a different port). And on their feedback form, it's statements like this "Before I used Webshield, I would constantly be checking my children on the internet, worried and anxious about what they might 'accidently' find. But now with Webshield, I can leave them to their homework, etc and not stress." that really scare me!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't jump for joy yet , as it is n't quite dead .
Alledgedgly Conroy has to wait 6-8 weeks for the results to come through from the ISPs that were part of the trial .
And some of those ISPs have a vested interest in providing positive results as that is what their business is all about .
Eg. Webshield FAQ : Does WebShield filtering slow my connection down ?
[ webshield.net.au ] and if you look at this page WebShield Filtering [ webshield.net.au ] , this statement makes me laugh and die a little inside at the same time " There are over 65,536 communication ports on the Internet .
Only 5 are essential .
WebShield can block any combination on a per user basis .
" which is a blatent lie , if you look at the page they include FTP , which uses a random ports !
( Connect on 21 , data comes back on a different port ) .
And on their feedback form , it 's statements like this " Before I used Webshield , I would constantly be checking my children on the internet , worried and anxious about what they might 'accidently ' find .
But now with Webshield , I can leave them to their homework , etc and not stress .
" that really scare me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't jump for joy yet, as it isn't quite dead.
Alledgedgly Conroy has to wait 6-8 weeks for the results to come through from the ISPs that were part of the trial.
And some of those ISPs have a vested interest in providing positive results as that is what their business is all about.
Eg. Webshield FAQ: Does WebShield filtering slow my connection down?
[webshield.net.au] and if you look at this page WebShield Filtering [webshield.net.au], this statement makes me laugh and die a little inside at the same time "There are over 65,536 communication ports on the Internet.
Only 5 are essential.
WebShield can block any combination on a per user basis.
" which is a blatent lie, if you look at the page they include FTP, which uses a random ports!
(Connect on 21, data comes back on a different port).
And on their feedback form, it's statements like this "Before I used Webshield, I would constantly be checking my children on the internet, worried and anxious about what they might 'accidently' find.
But now with Webshield, I can leave them to their homework, etc and not stress.
" that really scare me!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690367</id>
	<title>Hey</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247583360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those "teen thais" are actually grandmothers there, we just can't tell the difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those " teen thais " are actually grandmothers there , we just ca n't tell the difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those "teen thais" are actually grandmothers there, we just can't tell the difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28699101</id>
	<title>Re:Oh god :(</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247583840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately we're not a tech-savvy public<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:( and as for why ISPs would cooperate well this will likely be extended to other filtering ie stoping file sharing and Vodafone for example operates an online music store(at least for mobile phones?) so they have rather a conflict of interests in this area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately we 're not a tech-savvy public : ( and as for why ISPs would cooperate well this will likely be extended to other filtering ie stoping file sharing and Vodafone for example operates an online music store ( at least for mobile phones ?
) so they have rather a conflict of interests in this area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately we're not a tech-savvy public :( and as for why ISPs would cooperate well this will likely be extended to other filtering ie stoping file sharing and Vodafone for example operates an online music store(at least for mobile phones?
) so they have rather a conflict of interests in this area.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690607</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690535</id>
	<title>This path leads to the dark side...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247584020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Filtering of CP leads to filtering of obscenity, leads to filtering of "objectionable content," leads to filtering of government dissent, leads to another Great Firewall of China. So while I'm all for having child porn off of my internet, I don't particularly like how it could snowball.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Filtering of CP leads to filtering of obscenity , leads to filtering of " objectionable content , " leads to filtering of government dissent , leads to another Great Firewall of China .
So while I 'm all for having child porn off of my internet , I do n't particularly like how it could snowball .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Filtering of CP leads to filtering of obscenity, leads to filtering of "objectionable content," leads to filtering of government dissent, leads to another Great Firewall of China.
So while I'm all for having child porn off of my internet, I don't particularly like how it could snowball.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693261</id>
	<title>Re:I've never understood</title>
	<author>DM9290</author>
	<datestamp>1247595660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why normal people support laws like this. I completely understand why statist politicians, apparatchiks and lobbyists do, but not ordinary people. It's so incredibly obvious that if you know that a site focuses on this trash, just coordinate with the country where the servers are based. If the country is poor, it would be easy for New Zealand police to offer their police a modest "finder's fee" for allowing NZ police to tag along on a raid to take over the server, get the logs and go after the distributors. Hell, if we started offering bounties for people like this and the Nigerian scammers, third world governments would be falling all over themselves to help the first world countries fight internet crime.</p></div><p>yeah right. like the corrupt cops in the third world are going to arrest themselves for a finders fee. LOL</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why normal people support laws like this .
I completely understand why statist politicians , apparatchiks and lobbyists do , but not ordinary people .
It 's so incredibly obvious that if you know that a site focuses on this trash , just coordinate with the country where the servers are based .
If the country is poor , it would be easy for New Zealand police to offer their police a modest " finder 's fee " for allowing NZ police to tag along on a raid to take over the server , get the logs and go after the distributors .
Hell , if we started offering bounties for people like this and the Nigerian scammers , third world governments would be falling all over themselves to help the first world countries fight internet crime.yeah right .
like the corrupt cops in the third world are going to arrest themselves for a finders fee .
LOL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why normal people support laws like this.
I completely understand why statist politicians, apparatchiks and lobbyists do, but not ordinary people.
It's so incredibly obvious that if you know that a site focuses on this trash, just coordinate with the country where the servers are based.
If the country is poor, it would be easy for New Zealand police to offer their police a modest "finder's fee" for allowing NZ police to tag along on a raid to take over the server, get the logs and go after the distributors.
Hell, if we started offering bounties for people like this and the Nigerian scammers, third world governments would be falling all over themselves to help the first world countries fight internet crime.yeah right.
like the corrupt cops in the third world are going to arrest themselves for a finders fee.
LOL
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691063</id>
	<title>Re:Governments love crime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247586360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691135</id>
	<title>Re:Governments love crime</title>
	<author>redcaboodle</author>
	<datestamp>1247586780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I rather think our (German) minister of families and youth did invent child porn on the net.</p><p>She seems to be the only one who ever saw any, even the police say child porn in distributed mainly via other channels. Still we are getting the same kind of filters on August 1st; nevermind they are not constitutional and there was a massive backlash in parts of the press and people, as well a record-breaking petition with for than 100k signatures.</p><p>Funny thing, she got some extremely ugly images of child porn from the police and showed them to the press. Of course she was indicted for possession and distribution, but the (local equivalent) of the DA didn't take up the case citing she had official reasons to do so.</p><p>Say, les mecs. You've got Bastille Day over in France today, haven't you? Could we send her over for a little re-enactment? We'll gladly take your Sarkozy on our national holiday and bore him to death with depressive speeches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I rather think our ( German ) minister of families and youth did invent child porn on the net.She seems to be the only one who ever saw any , even the police say child porn in distributed mainly via other channels .
Still we are getting the same kind of filters on August 1st ; nevermind they are not constitutional and there was a massive backlash in parts of the press and people , as well a record-breaking petition with for than 100k signatures.Funny thing , she got some extremely ugly images of child porn from the police and showed them to the press .
Of course she was indicted for possession and distribution , but the ( local equivalent ) of the DA did n't take up the case citing she had official reasons to do so.Say , les mecs .
You 've got Bastille Day over in France today , have n't you ?
Could we send her over for a little re-enactment ?
We 'll gladly take your Sarkozy on our national holiday and bore him to death with depressive speeches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I rather think our (German) minister of families and youth did invent child porn on the net.She seems to be the only one who ever saw any, even the police say child porn in distributed mainly via other channels.
Still we are getting the same kind of filters on August 1st; nevermind they are not constitutional and there was a massive backlash in parts of the press and people, as well a record-breaking petition with for than 100k signatures.Funny thing, she got some extremely ugly images of child porn from the police and showed them to the press.
Of course she was indicted for possession and distribution, but the (local equivalent) of the DA didn't take up the case citing she had official reasons to do so.Say, les mecs.
You've got Bastille Day over in France today, haven't you?
Could we send her over for a little re-enactment?
We'll gladly take your Sarkozy on our national holiday and bore him to death with depressive speeches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28725549</id>
	<title>Re:Good to hear</title>
	<author>Kalriath</author>
	<datestamp>1247757060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead? Or was that too straightforward and precise?</p></div><p>But that might drop the arrest numbers down considerably, which means cutting funding, which means less sweet desk jobs for law enforcement officials.</p></div><p>Bad example.  Here in the USSNZ, the government is firing thousands of state officials.  They'd LOVE the opportunity to cut funding, and end sweet desk jobs for law enforcement officials.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead ?
Or was that too straightforward and precise ? But that might drop the arrest numbers down considerably , which means cutting funding , which means less sweet desk jobs for law enforcement officials.Bad example .
Here in the USSNZ , the government is firing thousands of state officials .
They 'd LOVE the opportunity to cut funding , and end sweet desk jobs for law enforcement officials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead?
Or was that too straightforward and precise?But that might drop the arrest numbers down considerably, which means cutting funding, which means less sweet desk jobs for law enforcement officials.Bad example.
Here in the USSNZ, the government is firing thousands of state officials.
They'd LOVE the opportunity to cut funding, and end sweet desk jobs for law enforcement officials.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693805</id>
	<title>Re:Governments love crime</title>
	<author>legirons</author>
	<datestamp>1247597820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Where would your government be without childporn?</p></div><p>hopefully not giving taxpayer-funded houses to 15 year-old mothers...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where would your government be without childporn ? hopefully not giving taxpayer-funded houses to 15 year-old mothers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where would your government be without childporn?hopefully not giving taxpayer-funded houses to 15 year-old mothers...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28696125</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting technical details</title>
	<author>ferrouswheel</author>
	<datestamp>1247565180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Major whoops. Not only do they admit it's easy to get around it, they helpfully give you the name of three services to use.</p>
 </div><p>Those details are given by the writer of the FAQ who isn't affiliated with the scheme.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Major whoops .
Not only do they admit it 's easy to get around it , they helpfully give you the name of three services to use .
Those details are given by the writer of the FAQ who is n't affiliated with the scheme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Major whoops.
Not only do they admit it's easy to get around it, they helpfully give you the name of three services to use.
Those details are given by the writer of the FAQ who isn't affiliated with the scheme.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691193</id>
	<title>Re:Good to hear</title>
	<author>QCompson</author>
	<datestamp>1247586960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead? Or was that too straightforward and precise?</p></div><p>But that might drop the arrest numbers down considerably, which means cutting funding, which means less sweet desk jobs for law enforcement officials.
<br> <br>
Think about it.  You can bust a guy who is molesting a child and taking photos of it, and that's one arrest.  But if you bust all the people who download, trade, or look at those photos, you can potentially makes thousands of arrests!  That's thousands of arrests based off of one sexual abuse incident.  Best of all, you can keep arresting people who look at those photos for many years into the future.  It's the gift that keeps on giving!
<br> <br>
No, it's best that these photos and videos continue to be produced.  At least until everyone finally agrees to make stories and drawings just as illegal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead ?
Or was that too straightforward and precise ? But that might drop the arrest numbers down considerably , which means cutting funding , which means less sweet desk jobs for law enforcement officials .
Think about it .
You can bust a guy who is molesting a child and taking photos of it , and that 's one arrest .
But if you bust all the people who download , trade , or look at those photos , you can potentially makes thousands of arrests !
That 's thousands of arrests based off of one sexual abuse incident .
Best of all , you can keep arresting people who look at those photos for many years into the future .
It 's the gift that keeps on giving !
No , it 's best that these photos and videos continue to be produced .
At least until everyone finally agrees to make stories and drawings just as illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead?
Or was that too straightforward and precise?But that might drop the arrest numbers down considerably, which means cutting funding, which means less sweet desk jobs for law enforcement officials.
Think about it.
You can bust a guy who is molesting a child and taking photos of it, and that's one arrest.
But if you bust all the people who download, trade, or look at those photos, you can potentially makes thousands of arrests!
That's thousands of arrests based off of one sexual abuse incident.
Best of all, you can keep arresting people who look at those photos for many years into the future.
It's the gift that keeps on giving!
No, it's best that these photos and videos continue to be produced.
At least until everyone finally agrees to make stories and drawings just as illegal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28692907</id>
	<title>Re:Oh god :(</title>
	<author>Blixinator</author>
	<datestamp>1247594280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...
So how did it get to this? I made a joke about internet filtering following this guy around and now we're debating basic human rights. I suspect a butterfly somewhere in Asia is to blame.</htmltext>
<tokenext>.. . So how did it get to this ?
I made a joke about internet filtering following this guy around and now we 're debating basic human rights .
I suspect a butterfly somewhere in Asia is to blame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...
So how did it get to this?
I made a joke about internet filtering following this guy around and now we're debating basic human rights.
I suspect a butterfly somewhere in Asia is to blame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693031</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's are in a tough spot</title>
	<author>Dog-Cow</author>
	<datestamp>1247594760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I challenge you to prove that child porn actually causes any lasting harm to the child beyond the fuss that adults make over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I challenge you to prove that child porn actually causes any lasting harm to the child beyond the fuss that adults make over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I challenge you to prove that child porn actually causes any lasting harm to the child beyond the fuss that adults make over it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28698809</id>
	<title>People blocking</title>
	<author>gringer</author>
	<datestamp>1247581140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the technical FAQ:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When a user requests a web page there are three possible outcomes:</p><ul> <li>...</li><li>The requested website is banned and is therefore on one of the filtered internet addresses. The request is diverted to the filter server which sees that the URL is banned and an &#226;oeAccess is refused&#226; page is returned. The internet address of the requesting computer is logged.</li><li>...</li></ul></div><p>So, if I want to put a black mark on someone, I look at the list of banned URLs, and put a hyperlink somewhere so that that person will click through to a banned URL. I could also put a message on the original page saying something like, "if you get an 'access is refused'" message, go back and click on the link again. It's worth it!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the technical FAQ : When a user requests a web page there are three possible outcomes : ...The requested website is banned and is therefore on one of the filtered internet addresses .
The request is diverted to the filter server which sees that the URL is banned and an   oeAccess is refused   page is returned .
The internet address of the requesting computer is logged....So , if I want to put a black mark on someone , I look at the list of banned URLs , and put a hyperlink somewhere so that that person will click through to a banned URL .
I could also put a message on the original page saying something like , " if you get an 'access is refused ' " message , go back and click on the link again .
It 's worth it !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the technical FAQ:When a user requests a web page there are three possible outcomes: ...The requested website is banned and is therefore on one of the filtered internet addresses.
The request is diverted to the filter server which sees that the URL is banned and an âoeAccess is refusedâ page is returned.
The internet address of the requesting computer is logged....So, if I want to put a black mark on someone, I look at the list of banned URLs, and put a hyperlink somewhere so that that person will click through to a banned URL.
I could also put a message on the original page saying something like, "if you get an 'access is refused'" message, go back and click on the link again.
It's worth it!
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690955</id>
	<title>Re:Oh god :(</title>
	<author>cellurl</author>
	<datestamp>1247585880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think slashdot should create a PAC (political action committee).<br>
We all voluntarily donate $10/yr to fight back.<br>
We need a centralized voice like the FSF, but in Washington.<br>
Anyone out there want to start it? I will donate today.<br>
Perhaps I will contact the FSF.<br>
I should run as our first US pirate-party.<br>
Anyone want to back me. See my log...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think slashdot should create a PAC ( political action committee ) .
We all voluntarily donate $ 10/yr to fight back .
We need a centralized voice like the FSF , but in Washington .
Anyone out there want to start it ?
I will donate today .
Perhaps I will contact the FSF .
I should run as our first US pirate-party .
Anyone want to back me .
See my log.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think slashdot should create a PAC (political action committee).
We all voluntarily donate $10/yr to fight back.
We need a centralized voice like the FSF, but in Washington.
Anyone out there want to start it?
I will donate today.
Perhaps I will contact the FSF.
I should run as our first US pirate-party.
Anyone want to back me.
See my log...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691563</id>
	<title>Re:Oh god :(</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247588700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And now New Zealand introduces internet filtering, just before I plan to move there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></div><p>Yes, whenever I despair about the path America is on I have always told myself, "Well, I can emigrate to NZ."  Now that looks less enticing.  Hopefully, they'll come around like they did in Oz.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And now New Zealand introduces internet filtering , just before I plan to move there : ( Yes , whenever I despair about the path America is on I have always told myself , " Well , I can emigrate to NZ .
" Now that looks less enticing .
Hopefully , they 'll come around like they did in Oz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And now New Zealand introduces internet filtering, just before I plan to move there :(Yes, whenever I despair about the path America is on I have always told myself, "Well, I can emigrate to NZ.
"  Now that looks less enticing.
Hopefully, they'll come around like they did in Oz.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690341</id>
	<title>Panties Stink</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247583180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Panties Stink!<br>They really, really stink!<br>Sometimes they're red, sometimes they're green,<br>Sometimes they're white or black or pink<br>Sometimes they're satin, sometimes they're lace<br>Sometimes they're cotton and soak up stains<br>But at the end of the day, it really makes you think<br>Wooooooo-wheeeee! Panties stink!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Panties Stink ! They really , really stink ! Sometimes they 're red , sometimes they 're green,Sometimes they 're white or black or pinkSometimes they 're satin , sometimes they 're laceSometimes they 're cotton and soak up stainsBut at the end of the day , it really makes you thinkWooooooo-wheeeee !
Panties stink !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Panties Stink!They really, really stink!Sometimes they're red, sometimes they're green,Sometimes they're white or black or pinkSometimes they're satin, sometimes they're laceSometimes they're cotton and soak up stainsBut at the end of the day, it really makes you thinkWooooooo-wheeeee!
Panties stink!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690641</id>
	<title>Safe Harbour</title>
	<author>thesupraman</author>
	<datestamp>1247584560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way this is usually done is by offering ISPs a safe harbour whereby they are not responsible for their users traffic if they follow the 'rules'.</p><p>My question is, why is this not available to ordinary people?</p><p>ie: if you run govt selected filtering software on your computer, you should be immune to prosecution for content accessed from that computer - much the same way as the ISPs are.</p><p>In NZ I believe posession of child pornography is automatically an offense with no defense (ie: even if you did not know it was present due to someone else accessing it) - so such an arrangement would have the advantage of protecting individuals who chose to opt in.</p><p>Of course this wont happen as its only the corps that get the 'get out of jail free' option, but it seems like a fair idea, no?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way this is usually done is by offering ISPs a safe harbour whereby they are not responsible for their users traffic if they follow the 'rules'.My question is , why is this not available to ordinary people ? ie : if you run govt selected filtering software on your computer , you should be immune to prosecution for content accessed from that computer - much the same way as the ISPs are.In NZ I believe posession of child pornography is automatically an offense with no defense ( ie : even if you did not know it was present due to someone else accessing it ) - so such an arrangement would have the advantage of protecting individuals who chose to opt in.Of course this wont happen as its only the corps that get the 'get out of jail free ' option , but it seems like a fair idea , no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way this is usually done is by offering ISPs a safe harbour whereby they are not responsible for their users traffic if they follow the 'rules'.My question is, why is this not available to ordinary people?ie: if you run govt selected filtering software on your computer, you should be immune to prosecution for content accessed from that computer - much the same way as the ISPs are.In NZ I believe posession of child pornography is automatically an offense with no defense (ie: even if you did not know it was present due to someone else accessing it) - so such an arrangement would have the advantage of protecting individuals who chose to opt in.Of course this wont happen as its only the corps that get the 'get out of jail free' option, but it seems like a fair idea, no?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693933</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's are in a tough spot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247598420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As hard as it is to accept censorship, at the same time, do you really want to make a stand over child porn? It's a rough spot, because it does open the door to more censorship, and if it isn't stopped now it won't ever be able to be stopped, but at the same time this is a really sneaky way of doing it because of the subject mater and the general publics view on it.</p></div><p>It has nothing to do with child porn. These list are NOT used to block child porn. They are used to block whatever the government or those in charge of the list <a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/A\_Blacklist\_for\_Websites\_Backfires\_in\_Australia" title="wikileaks.org">finds</a> [wikileaks.org] <a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/797\_domains\_on\_Finnish\_Internet\_censorship\_list\%2C\_including\_censorship\_critic\%2C\_2008" title="wikileaks.org"> objectionable</a> [wikileaks.org].</p><p>If it was about child porn the objective would be to catch and punish those who are actually producing and publishing the material. They are committing crimes and hurting people. Blocking has no effect on the production and distribution of child porn. Filters and blocks are trivial to circumvent. It's probable easier to circumvent the filters that it is to actually find child porn on the interent. If it's not it should be relatively easy for the government authorities to shut down the sites and prosecute the guilty rather than introducing censorship that, by all rights, will have a terrifying chilling effect on free speech and freedom of the press. One of the <a href="http://publicaddress.net/6042#post6042" title="publicaddress.net">articles included in the summary</a> [publicaddress.net] states that legally objectionable material in NZ includes:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>All 'objectionable' material is banned. In deciding whether a publication is 'objectionable', or should instead be given an 'unrestricted' or 'restricted' classification, consideration is given to the extent, degree and manner in which the publication describes, depicts, or deals with:</p><p>&#226; acts of torture, the infliction of serious physical harm or acts of significant cruelty</p><p>&#226; degrades or dehumanises or demeans any person</p><p>&#226; promotes or encourages criminal acts or acts of terrorism</p><p>&#226; represents that members of any particular class of the public are inherently inferior to other members of the public by reason of any characteristic of members of that class being a characteristic that is a prohibited ground of discrimination specified in the Human Rights Act 1993. </p></div><p>So this includes that video of the police beating that man who was rude to them. It includes the riot police attacking the crowd of peaceful protesters. It includes the police opening fire on the protesters who turn violent after being beaten. And don't say that won't happen. Finland's list already contains anti-censorship web sites.</p><p>I find it strange and ironic that governments are in an uproar about the censorship in Iran and some are actually considering punishing the companies that sold equipment and software used for censorship while at the same time out of the other side of their mouths they are advocating establishing the same type of censorship here (where ever here is: US, Australia, Europe, Canada). It's about child porn my ass.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As hard as it is to accept censorship , at the same time , do you really want to make a stand over child porn ?
It 's a rough spot , because it does open the door to more censorship , and if it is n't stopped now it wo n't ever be able to be stopped , but at the same time this is a really sneaky way of doing it because of the subject mater and the general publics view on it.It has nothing to do with child porn .
These list are NOT used to block child porn .
They are used to block whatever the government or those in charge of the list finds [ wikileaks.org ] objectionable [ wikileaks.org ] .If it was about child porn the objective would be to catch and punish those who are actually producing and publishing the material .
They are committing crimes and hurting people .
Blocking has no effect on the production and distribution of child porn .
Filters and blocks are trivial to circumvent .
It 's probable easier to circumvent the filters that it is to actually find child porn on the interent .
If it 's not it should be relatively easy for the government authorities to shut down the sites and prosecute the guilty rather than introducing censorship that , by all rights , will have a terrifying chilling effect on free speech and freedom of the press .
One of the articles included in the summary [ publicaddress.net ] states that legally objectionable material in NZ includes : All 'objectionable ' material is banned .
In deciding whether a publication is 'objectionable ' , or should instead be given an 'unrestricted ' or 'restricted ' classification , consideration is given to the extent , degree and manner in which the publication describes , depicts , or deals with :   acts of torture , the infliction of serious physical harm or acts of significant cruelty   degrades or dehumanises or demeans any person   promotes or encourages criminal acts or acts of terrorism   represents that members of any particular class of the public are inherently inferior to other members of the public by reason of any characteristic of members of that class being a characteristic that is a prohibited ground of discrimination specified in the Human Rights Act 1993 .
So this includes that video of the police beating that man who was rude to them .
It includes the riot police attacking the crowd of peaceful protesters .
It includes the police opening fire on the protesters who turn violent after being beaten .
And do n't say that wo n't happen .
Finland 's list already contains anti-censorship web sites.I find it strange and ironic that governments are in an uproar about the censorship in Iran and some are actually considering punishing the companies that sold equipment and software used for censorship while at the same time out of the other side of their mouths they are advocating establishing the same type of censorship here ( where ever here is : US , Australia , Europe , Canada ) .
It 's about child porn my ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As hard as it is to accept censorship, at the same time, do you really want to make a stand over child porn?
It's a rough spot, because it does open the door to more censorship, and if it isn't stopped now it won't ever be able to be stopped, but at the same time this is a really sneaky way of doing it because of the subject mater and the general publics view on it.It has nothing to do with child porn.
These list are NOT used to block child porn.
They are used to block whatever the government or those in charge of the list finds [wikileaks.org]  objectionable [wikileaks.org].If it was about child porn the objective would be to catch and punish those who are actually producing and publishing the material.
They are committing crimes and hurting people.
Blocking has no effect on the production and distribution of child porn.
Filters and blocks are trivial to circumvent.
It's probable easier to circumvent the filters that it is to actually find child porn on the interent.
If it's not it should be relatively easy for the government authorities to shut down the sites and prosecute the guilty rather than introducing censorship that, by all rights, will have a terrifying chilling effect on free speech and freedom of the press.
One of the articles included in the summary [publicaddress.net] states that legally objectionable material in NZ includes:All 'objectionable' material is banned.
In deciding whether a publication is 'objectionable', or should instead be given an 'unrestricted' or 'restricted' classification, consideration is given to the extent, degree and manner in which the publication describes, depicts, or deals with:â acts of torture, the infliction of serious physical harm or acts of significant crueltyâ degrades or dehumanises or demeans any personâ promotes or encourages criminal acts or acts of terrorismâ represents that members of any particular class of the public are inherently inferior to other members of the public by reason of any characteristic of members of that class being a characteristic that is a prohibited ground of discrimination specified in the Human Rights Act 1993.
So this includes that video of the police beating that man who was rude to them.
It includes the riot police attacking the crowd of peaceful protesters.
It includes the police opening fire on the protesters who turn violent after being beaten.
And don't say that won't happen.
Finland's list already contains anti-censorship web sites.I find it strange and ironic that governments are in an uproar about the censorship in Iran and some are actually considering punishing the companies that sold equipment and software used for censorship while at the same time out of the other side of their mouths they are advocating establishing the same type of censorship here (where ever here is: US, Australia, Europe, Canada).
It's about child porn my ass.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690631</id>
	<title>Re:Oh god :(</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247584500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, that particular retardation is still alive and well in Australia and is currently under trial. Despite a lack of support from just about everyone outside of a few minorities, the Australian government continues to forge ahead with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , that particular retardation is still alive and well in Australia and is currently under trial .
Despite a lack of support from just about everyone outside of a few minorities , the Australian government continues to forge ahead with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, that particular retardation is still alive and well in Australia and is currently under trial.
Despite a lack of support from just about everyone outside of a few minorities, the Australian government continues to forge ahead with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28698325</id>
	<title>Re:Governments love crime</title>
	<author>SETIGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1247577360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sigh... not sure if you're trolling there or just making a bitter point - but a point you have, there. It never ceases to amaze me how many people believe, after centuries and centuries of contrary evidence, that more government will make their lives better.</p></div><p>
Yeah!  Because things are just great in here in Somalia...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sigh... not sure if you 're trolling there or just making a bitter point - but a point you have , there .
It never ceases to amaze me how many people believe , after centuries and centuries of contrary evidence , that more government will make their lives better .
Yeah ! Because things are just great in here in Somalia.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sigh... not sure if you're trolling there or just making a bitter point - but a point you have, there.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people believe, after centuries and centuries of contrary evidence, that more government will make their lives better.
Yeah!  Because things are just great in here in Somalia...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690453</id>
	<title>Re:Oh god :(</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247583660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come to think of it, what we need is a Pirate Party of New Zealand to make sure this sort of crap doesn't happen; We are already well on the way to establishing the Pirate Party of Australia (http://ppau.info/).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come to think of it , what we need is a Pirate Party of New Zealand to make sure this sort of crap does n't happen ; We are already well on the way to establishing the Pirate Party of Australia ( http : //ppau.info/ ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come to think of it, what we need is a Pirate Party of New Zealand to make sure this sort of crap doesn't happen; We are already well on the way to establishing the Pirate Party of Australia (http://ppau.info/).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28696099</id>
	<title>Re:I've never understood</title>
	<author>ferrouswheel</author>
	<datestamp>1247565060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, except they just tried to put this system in place with barely a blip on the public radar. Most normal people had no idea the internet was under a filtering test.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , except they just tried to put this system in place with barely a blip on the public radar .
Most normal people had no idea the internet was under a filtering test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, except they just tried to put this system in place with barely a blip on the public radar.
Most normal people had no idea the internet was under a filtering test.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690331</id>
	<title>Happy Bastille Day:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247583120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and conveniently coincides with New Zealand's increasingly fascist practises.</p><p>Yours In Communism,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and conveniently coincides with New Zealand 's increasingly fascist practises.Yours In Communism,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and conveniently coincides with New Zealand's increasingly fascist practises.Yours In Communism,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28692593</id>
	<title>Re:Good to hear</title>
	<author>mordejai</author>
	<datestamp>1247592960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about spending the resources on busting <b>child molesters</b> and exposing <b>child trafficking</b> rings instead?</p></div><p>There. Fixed it for you.</p><p>First, they (we!) would have to focus on the real criminals instead of the mentally ill (which should be treated, but in a different way)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about spending the resources on busting child molesters and exposing child trafficking rings instead ? There .
Fixed it for you.First , they ( we !
) would have to focus on the real criminals instead of the mentally ill ( which should be treated , but in a different way )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about spending the resources on busting child molesters and exposing child trafficking rings instead?There.
Fixed it for you.First, they (we!
) would have to focus on the real criminals instead of the mentally ill (which should be treated, but in a different way)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690961</id>
	<title>First they came for the paedophiles and...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247585880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First they came for the paedophiles and I did nothing to stop them because I was not a paedophile</p><p>Then they came for the children but could not put them in with the paedophiles for obvious reasons, realised they had made a terrible mistake, so had to let them go again and I did nothing because I was not a child.</p><p>Then they came for the gay people and found that they could put some of the gay people in with the paedophiles without too much problem but had to let the rest go and I did nothing because I was not gay, or so I thought at the time</p><p>Then the paedophiles escaped and boy were they mad, and they came looking for all the normal people and I did nothing because by then I figured I was at least a bit gay and so did not fit the 'normal' profile but they had other ideas and took me anyway, and there was nobody else left to save me. Life just isn't fair sometimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First they came for the paedophiles and I did nothing to stop them because I was not a paedophileThen they came for the children but could not put them in with the paedophiles for obvious reasons , realised they had made a terrible mistake , so had to let them go again and I did nothing because I was not a child.Then they came for the gay people and found that they could put some of the gay people in with the paedophiles without too much problem but had to let the rest go and I did nothing because I was not gay , or so I thought at the timeThen the paedophiles escaped and boy were they mad , and they came looking for all the normal people and I did nothing because by then I figured I was at least a bit gay and so did not fit the 'normal ' profile but they had other ideas and took me anyway , and there was nobody else left to save me .
Life just is n't fair sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First they came for the paedophiles and I did nothing to stop them because I was not a paedophileThen they came for the children but could not put them in with the paedophiles for obvious reasons, realised they had made a terrible mistake, so had to let them go again and I did nothing because I was not a child.Then they came for the gay people and found that they could put some of the gay people in with the paedophiles without too much problem but had to let the rest go and I did nothing because I was not gay, or so I thought at the timeThen the paedophiles escaped and boy were they mad, and they came looking for all the normal people and I did nothing because by then I figured I was at least a bit gay and so did not fit the 'normal' profile but they had other ideas and took me anyway, and there was nobody else left to save me.
Life just isn't fair sometimes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691441</id>
	<title>Re:Good to hear</title>
	<author>TheGratefulNet</author>
	<datestamp>1247588160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead? Or was that too straightforward </i></p><p>first rule of government: make laws such that anyone can be 'guilty' of something.  keep the population in fear and control.</p><p>they do not WANT to fix certain social evils.  they LIKE it, that they have this ever-present boogeyman around.</p><p>remember when saddam was the central boogeyman?  we got rid of him and we need an new one.</p><p>'child pedos' are the universally hated boogeyman.  the law loves the fact that they can pass ANY law if it mentions pedo or terror.</p><p>you will never find actual law enforcement spending much time FIXING this social problem.  they are more power-enabled by letting the fear work for itself.  they can get more 'done' with the population always afraid of someone 'evil doer' (remember when bush used that phrase almost daily?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead ?
Or was that too straightforward first rule of government : make laws such that anyone can be 'guilty ' of something .
keep the population in fear and control.they do not WANT to fix certain social evils .
they LIKE it , that they have this ever-present boogeyman around.remember when saddam was the central boogeyman ?
we got rid of him and we need an new one .
'child pedos ' are the universally hated boogeyman .
the law loves the fact that they can pass ANY law if it mentions pedo or terror.you will never find actual law enforcement spending much time FIXING this social problem .
they are more power-enabled by letting the fear work for itself .
they can get more 'done ' with the population always afraid of someone 'evil doer ' ( remember when bush used that phrase almost daily ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead?
Or was that too straightforward first rule of government: make laws such that anyone can be 'guilty' of something.
keep the population in fear and control.they do not WANT to fix certain social evils.
they LIKE it, that they have this ever-present boogeyman around.remember when saddam was the central boogeyman?
we got rid of him and we need an new one.
'child pedos' are the universally hated boogeyman.
the law loves the fact that they can pass ANY law if it mentions pedo or terror.you will never find actual law enforcement spending much time FIXING this social problem.
they are more power-enabled by letting the fear work for itself.
they can get more 'done' with the population always afraid of someone 'evil doer' (remember when bush used that phrase almost daily?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690735</id>
	<title>Re:ISP's are in a tough spot</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247584920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I think the ISPs that want to sign up highly computer-savvy, low support-calls creating people would probably stand up against the law and 'fight' it as good as they can.</p><p>Anyone who spent 6 months on the internet knows that such a tool is doomed to fail. Either the implementation sucks. Or the list gets out (pretty much creating a "pedo menu" of sorts, along with a lot of fallout should any site on the list not belong there). And many are just pissed off at the mere concept of government thinking it may decide what's good for me to know.</p><p>So if you're an ISP and if you want to put some stress off your supporter's backs and if you want people who will pay their ISP bills before considering gas or water...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I think the ISPs that want to sign up highly computer-savvy , low support-calls creating people would probably stand up against the law and 'fight ' it as good as they can.Anyone who spent 6 months on the internet knows that such a tool is doomed to fail .
Either the implementation sucks .
Or the list gets out ( pretty much creating a " pedo menu " of sorts , along with a lot of fallout should any site on the list not belong there ) .
And many are just pissed off at the mere concept of government thinking it may decide what 's good for me to know.So if you 're an ISP and if you want to put some stress off your supporter 's backs and if you want people who will pay their ISP bills before considering gas or water.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I think the ISPs that want to sign up highly computer-savvy, low support-calls creating people would probably stand up against the law and 'fight' it as good as they can.Anyone who spent 6 months on the internet knows that such a tool is doomed to fail.
Either the implementation sucks.
Or the list gets out (pretty much creating a "pedo menu" of sorts, along with a lot of fallout should any site on the list not belong there).
And many are just pissed off at the mere concept of government thinking it may decide what's good for me to know.So if you're an ISP and if you want to put some stress off your supporter's backs and if you want people who will pay their ISP bills before considering gas or water...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28697639</id>
	<title>Re:Protect the imaginary children!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247572440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From the FAQ:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What type of material is censored?</p><p>The trial scheme was used to filter child pornography including video, photos, <b>stories and drawings</b>. Other illegal material (as defined by New Zealand law) is not filtered.</p></div><p>Stories and drawings.  Because icky thoughts must be banned.</p></div><p>This would include novels such as "To Kill a Mockingbird" (child rape scene) and "Brave, New World" (child sex scenes) as well as multiple other works of literature.</p><p>After all, we can't have people thinking icky thoughts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the FAQ : What type of material is censored ? The trial scheme was used to filter child pornography including video , photos , stories and drawings .
Other illegal material ( as defined by New Zealand law ) is not filtered.Stories and drawings .
Because icky thoughts must be banned.This would include novels such as " To Kill a Mockingbird " ( child rape scene ) and " Brave , New World " ( child sex scenes ) as well as multiple other works of literature.After all , we ca n't have people thinking icky thoughts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the FAQ:What type of material is censored?The trial scheme was used to filter child pornography including video, photos, stories and drawings.
Other illegal material (as defined by New Zealand law) is not filtered.Stories and drawings.
Because icky thoughts must be banned.This would include novels such as "To Kill a Mockingbird" (child rape scene) and "Brave, New World" (child sex scenes) as well as multiple other works of literature.After all, we can't have people thinking icky thoughts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690833</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28698017</id>
	<title>Re:Oh god :(</title>
	<author>srjh</author>
	<datestamp>1247575140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haven't been keeping up with the developments, have you?</p><p>This "laughably insane" idea is alive and well, as of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/15/2625979.htm" title="abc.net.au">two hours ago</a> [abc.net.au].</p><p>And with precisely the same reasoning - any time you disagree with the government... "but, child porn!". The filters won't work, they'll be trivial to defeat. "Child porn!". This is a top-secret blacklist without a scrap of accountability, confirmed to contain mostly adult pornography... "CHILD PORN!"... and multiple political websites "you don't support child porn do you?". Your top-secret list of the most evil content on the internet leaked, exactly as we told you it would "kiddy fiddler!". Even PG-rated material is on the blacklist... "PEDOPHILE!".</p><p>Ugh. And more depressingly, the tactic's working.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't been keeping up with the developments , have you ? This " laughably insane " idea is alive and well , as of two hours ago [ abc.net.au ] .And with precisely the same reasoning - any time you disagree with the government... " but , child porn ! " .
The filters wo n't work , they 'll be trivial to defeat .
" Child porn ! " .
This is a top-secret blacklist without a scrap of accountability , confirmed to contain mostly adult pornography... " CHILD PORN ! " .. .
and multiple political websites " you do n't support child porn do you ? " .
Your top-secret list of the most evil content on the internet leaked , exactly as we told you it would " kiddy fiddler ! " .
Even PG-rated material is on the blacklist.. .
" PEDOPHILE ! " .Ugh. And more depressingly , the tactic 's working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't been keeping up with the developments, have you?This "laughably insane" idea is alive and well, as of two hours ago [abc.net.au].And with precisely the same reasoning - any time you disagree with the government... "but, child porn!".
The filters won't work, they'll be trivial to defeat.
"Child porn!".
This is a top-secret blacklist without a scrap of accountability, confirmed to contain mostly adult pornography... "CHILD PORN!"...
and multiple political websites "you don't support child porn do you?".
Your top-secret list of the most evil content on the internet leaked, exactly as we told you it would "kiddy fiddler!".
Even PG-rated material is on the blacklist...
"PEDOPHILE!".Ugh. And more depressingly, the tactic's working.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691179</id>
	<title>Interesting technical details</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247586960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the technical details article:<br> <br>

<b>Does it support the next version of IP, v6?</b> <br>
No.<br> <br>

Whoops.<br> <br>

<b>What if the website uses HTTPS (secure HTTP)?</b> <br> <br>

<i>If the website uses https (e.g. as used for internet banking or online shopping), the filter server can't examine the request to see what website it is going to on the target internet address.</i> <br>
<i>This means the the filter server must block all https websites on a filtered internet address. This will interrupt service to any website that needs to use a secure connection.</i> <br> <br>

Whoops part 2.<br> <br>

<b>Is it possible to circumvent the filtering?</b> <br> <br>

<i>It is relatively easy for a motivated user to circumvent the filtering. This is done by routing the requests to a proxy service in another country that does not filter the required site.<br>
There are also a number of free services that exist to allow people to escape from government monitoring of their internet usage. These services include: Tor, Freenet and WASTE.</i> <br> <br>

Major whoops. Not only do they admit it's easy to get around it, they helpfully give you the name of three services to use.<br> <br>

Don't get me wrong, I find the idea of child porn abhorrent and sickening. It's just that I don't understand why governments continue to push filtering as the answer when it's never going to work. If they want to get rid of the problem, all they have to do is target offending porno sites with a massive DDOS attack. They could slave every idle govt PC in the country to the task, and there are an awful lot of idle govt PCs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the technical details article : Does it support the next version of IP , v6 ?
No . Whoops .
What if the website uses HTTPS ( secure HTTP ) ?
If the website uses https ( e.g .
as used for internet banking or online shopping ) , the filter server ca n't examine the request to see what website it is going to on the target internet address .
This means the the filter server must block all https websites on a filtered internet address .
This will interrupt service to any website that needs to use a secure connection .
Whoops part 2 .
Is it possible to circumvent the filtering ?
It is relatively easy for a motivated user to circumvent the filtering .
This is done by routing the requests to a proxy service in another country that does not filter the required site .
There are also a number of free services that exist to allow people to escape from government monitoring of their internet usage .
These services include : Tor , Freenet and WASTE .
Major whoops .
Not only do they admit it 's easy to get around it , they helpfully give you the name of three services to use .
Do n't get me wrong , I find the idea of child porn abhorrent and sickening .
It 's just that I do n't understand why governments continue to push filtering as the answer when it 's never going to work .
If they want to get rid of the problem , all they have to do is target offending porno sites with a massive DDOS attack .
They could slave every idle govt PC in the country to the task , and there are an awful lot of idle govt PCs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the technical details article: 

Does it support the next version of IP, v6?
No. 

Whoops.
What if the website uses HTTPS (secure HTTP)?
If the website uses https (e.g.
as used for internet banking or online shopping), the filter server can't examine the request to see what website it is going to on the target internet address.
This means the the filter server must block all https websites on a filtered internet address.
This will interrupt service to any website that needs to use a secure connection.
Whoops part 2.
Is it possible to circumvent the filtering?
It is relatively easy for a motivated user to circumvent the filtering.
This is done by routing the requests to a proxy service in another country that does not filter the required site.
There are also a number of free services that exist to allow people to escape from government monitoring of their internet usage.
These services include: Tor, Freenet and WASTE.
Major whoops.
Not only do they admit it's easy to get around it, they helpfully give you the name of three services to use.
Don't get me wrong, I find the idea of child porn abhorrent and sickening.
It's just that I don't understand why governments continue to push filtering as the answer when it's never going to work.
If they want to get rid of the problem, all they have to do is target offending porno sites with a massive DDOS attack.
They could slave every idle govt PC in the country to the task, and there are an awful lot of idle govt PCs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690425</id>
	<title>Somebody's getting paid to look at child porn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247583480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since neither FAQ mentioned any mechanism for reporting sites that have illegal content, I assume that means they're relying on some dedicated law-enforcement professionals to go out looking for child porn/bestial porn.</p><p>That's gonna make that first date "and what do you do?" conversation a little awkward.</p><p>And hey, slowing down everyone's internet experience for only half a million dollars/year?  That's quite a steal!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since neither FAQ mentioned any mechanism for reporting sites that have illegal content , I assume that means they 're relying on some dedicated law-enforcement professionals to go out looking for child porn/bestial porn.That 's gon na make that first date " and what do you do ?
" conversation a little awkward.And hey , slowing down everyone 's internet experience for only half a million dollars/year ?
That 's quite a steal !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since neither FAQ mentioned any mechanism for reporting sites that have illegal content, I assume that means they're relying on some dedicated law-enforcement professionals to go out looking for child porn/bestial porn.That's gonna make that first date "and what do you do?
" conversation a little awkward.And hey, slowing down everyone's internet experience for only half a million dollars/year?
That's quite a steal!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28692149</id>
	<title>Re:Governments love crime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247591160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Where would your government be without childporn?</i></p><p>Slightly less wealthy and slightly less powerful than without. Let's not kid ourselves here: child porn is only the latest in a long line of justifications for more revenue and more power over the people.</p><p>If you examine the history of any government that has ever existed, it's a slow but steady expansion of power and revenue. Governments only get bigger, never smaller, and this has been the goal of those in the business long before any government executive played the child porn card.</p><p>For christ's sake, the US government has expanded nearly exponentially over the past 10 years in power and revenue, and most of it happened before child porn was even a twinkle in the career politician's eye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where would your government be without childporn ? Slightly less wealthy and slightly less powerful than without .
Let 's not kid ourselves here : child porn is only the latest in a long line of justifications for more revenue and more power over the people.If you examine the history of any government that has ever existed , it 's a slow but steady expansion of power and revenue .
Governments only get bigger , never smaller , and this has been the goal of those in the business long before any government executive played the child porn card.For christ 's sake , the US government has expanded nearly exponentially over the past 10 years in power and revenue , and most of it happened before child porn was even a twinkle in the career politician 's eye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where would your government be without childporn?Slightly less wealthy and slightly less powerful than without.
Let's not kid ourselves here: child porn is only the latest in a long line of justifications for more revenue and more power over the people.If you examine the history of any government that has ever existed, it's a slow but steady expansion of power and revenue.
Governments only get bigger, never smaller, and this has been the goal of those in the business long before any government executive played the child porn card.For christ's sake, the US government has expanded nearly exponentially over the past 10 years in power and revenue, and most of it happened before child porn was even a twinkle in the career politician's eye.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28701687</id>
	<title>Re:As a NZ citizen...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247660700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm, dude, with the authorities in NZ covering up stuff like this:<br>http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the\_briefing\_room/2007/05/media\_release\_f.html</p><p>I wouldn't trust them to run an internet filter... or anything, in my assessment, the people who run our country are basic morons<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , dude , with the authorities in NZ covering up stuff like this : http : //briefingroom.typepad.com/the \ _briefing \ _room/2007/05/media \ _release \ _f.htmlI would n't trust them to run an internet filter... or anything , in my assessment , the people who run our country are basic morons : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, dude, with the authorities in NZ covering up stuff like this:http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the\_briefing\_room/2007/05/media\_release\_f.htmlI wouldn't trust them to run an internet filter... or anything, in my assessment, the people who run our country are basic morons :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28699545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690401</id>
	<title>I've never understood</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1247583420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why normal people support laws like this. I completely understand why statist politicians, apparatchiks and lobbyists do, but not ordinary people. It's so incredibly obvious that if you know that a site focuses on this trash, just coordinate with the country where the servers are based. If the country is poor, it would be easy for New Zealand police to offer their police a modest "finder's fee" for allowing NZ police to tag along on a raid to take over the server, get the logs and go after the distributors. Hell, if we started offering bounties for people like this and the Nigerian scammers, third world governments would be falling all over themselves to help the first world countries fight internet crime.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why normal people support laws like this .
I completely understand why statist politicians , apparatchiks and lobbyists do , but not ordinary people .
It 's so incredibly obvious that if you know that a site focuses on this trash , just coordinate with the country where the servers are based .
If the country is poor , it would be easy for New Zealand police to offer their police a modest " finder 's fee " for allowing NZ police to tag along on a raid to take over the server , get the logs and go after the distributors .
Hell , if we started offering bounties for people like this and the Nigerian scammers , third world governments would be falling all over themselves to help the first world countries fight internet crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why normal people support laws like this.
I completely understand why statist politicians, apparatchiks and lobbyists do, but not ordinary people.
It's so incredibly obvious that if you know that a site focuses on this trash, just coordinate with the country where the servers are based.
If the country is poor, it would be easy for New Zealand police to offer their police a modest "finder's fee" for allowing NZ police to tag along on a raid to take over the server, get the logs and go after the distributors.
Hell, if we started offering bounties for people like this and the Nigerian scammers, third world governments would be falling all over themselves to help the first world countries fight internet crime.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28700843</id>
	<title>Re:I've never understood</title>
	<author>Delosian</author>
	<datestamp>1247689320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The majority of the people here in New Zealand do not support internet censorship but we all agree that Child Porn needs to be dealt with.

The problem is that when the government mentions a tactic to tackle Child Porn the people all say YES! but they rarely take the time to wonder what the government has in mind to do this and what it will try to sneak in while it doing is there, such as suppressing Free Speech which the Human Rights Act 1993 does if one bothers to read the Bill.

For example if one tries to talk about minority crime rates, that's illegal! While no one has gone to jail for it as far as I know, some experts have been denied a visa to enter the country to speak on this very topic because it violates the Human Rights Act 1993.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The majority of the people here in New Zealand do not support internet censorship but we all agree that Child Porn needs to be dealt with .
The problem is that when the government mentions a tactic to tackle Child Porn the people all say YES !
but they rarely take the time to wonder what the government has in mind to do this and what it will try to sneak in while it doing is there , such as suppressing Free Speech which the Human Rights Act 1993 does if one bothers to read the Bill .
For example if one tries to talk about minority crime rates , that 's illegal !
While no one has gone to jail for it as far as I know , some experts have been denied a visa to enter the country to speak on this very topic because it violates the Human Rights Act 1993 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The majority of the people here in New Zealand do not support internet censorship but we all agree that Child Porn needs to be dealt with.
The problem is that when the government mentions a tactic to tackle Child Porn the people all say YES!
but they rarely take the time to wonder what the government has in mind to do this and what it will try to sneak in while it doing is there, such as suppressing Free Speech which the Human Rights Act 1993 does if one bothers to read the Bill.
For example if one tries to talk about minority crime rates, that's illegal!
While no one has gone to jail for it as far as I know, some experts have been denied a visa to enter the country to speak on this very topic because it violates the Human Rights Act 1993.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693295</id>
	<title>Re:Good to hear</title>
	<author>Drakkenmensch</author>
	<datestamp>1247595780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead? Or was that too straightforward and precise?</p></div><p> <i>"It's always slower to do things fast, more complicated to do things simple and more expensive to do things cheap."</i> - Humphrey from <i>Yes Minister</i>, answering the minister on why government can't work more efficiently.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead ?
Or was that too straightforward and precise ?
" It 's always slower to do things fast , more complicated to do things simple and more expensive to do things cheap .
" - Humphrey from Yes Minister , answering the minister on why government ca n't work more efficiently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about spending the resources on busting pedophiles and exposing pedophile rings instead?
Or was that too straightforward and precise?
"It's always slower to do things fast, more complicated to do things simple and more expensive to do things cheap.
" - Humphrey from Yes Minister, answering the minister on why government can't work more efficiently.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690353</id>
	<title>Governments love crime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247583240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where would your government be without childporn? If it didn't exist, the government would surely invent it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where would your government be without childporn ?
If it did n't exist , the government would surely invent it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where would your government be without childporn?
If it didn't exist, the government would surely invent it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694171</id>
	<title>Something to consider</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247599380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is well documented that incidence of rape, and violence in general, dropped dramatically with the popularization of porn.</p><p>Let's assume the filter does its job (which most of us agree is unlikely).  Has anyone considered that reducing access to child porn may actually increase the incidence of child rape?</p><p>Maybe the sex drive works differently in these people, but if it doesn't, is it not reasonable to assume there is a significant risk associated with removing their "outlet?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is well documented that incidence of rape , and violence in general , dropped dramatically with the popularization of porn.Let 's assume the filter does its job ( which most of us agree is unlikely ) .
Has anyone considered that reducing access to child porn may actually increase the incidence of child rape ? Maybe the sex drive works differently in these people , but if it does n't , is it not reasonable to assume there is a significant risk associated with removing their " outlet ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is well documented that incidence of rape, and violence in general, dropped dramatically with the popularization of porn.Let's assume the filter does its job (which most of us agree is unlikely).
Has anyone considered that reducing access to child porn may actually increase the incidence of child rape?Maybe the sex drive works differently in these people, but if it doesn't, is it not reasonable to assume there is a significant risk associated with removing their "outlet?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28698325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28695355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28700653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28692149
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691165
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28700843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28699625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28697313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28699869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28699101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28697787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28696099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28725549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28700225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28698017
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28699447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690453
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28692593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28705063
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28699545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690631
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28697271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28692907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28696125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28701687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28699545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691007
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28692611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28695059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693045
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28697639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1330239_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28692855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1330239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28699869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28697271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1330239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28697313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28700653
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1330239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691063
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694365
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28698325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28692855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28692149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693805
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1330239.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691193
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693045
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28725549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28692593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28692611
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1330239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28698809
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1330239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691327
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1330239.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690453
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28699447
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28698017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690607
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28699101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28699625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28692907
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1330239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28697787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28695355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28696125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28700225
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1330239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28697639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1330239.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690659
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1330239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28696099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28700843
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1330239.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28695059
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1330239.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694005
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1330239.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28694085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28691473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28693933
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1330239.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690341
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1330239.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28699545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28705063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28701687
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1330239.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1330239.28690557
</commentlist>
</conversation>
