<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_17_1346209</id>
	<title>Facebook Violates Canadian Privacy Law</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1247846100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:myriad@thebso\%5B\%5Dom\%5B'd.c'ingap\%5D" rel="nofollow">Myriad</a> and a number of other readers passed along the news that the Canadian Privacy Commissioner has made a determination that <a href="http://www.priv.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2009/nr-c\_090716\_e.cfm">Facebook violates Canadian privacy law</a> in four different respects. Canada has the highest per-capita facebook participation in the world &mdash; about <a href="http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/667700">a third of the population</a> &mdash; according to coverage in The Star. The EU is also expressing similar privacy concerns, though Canada's action "represents the most exhaustive official investigation of Facebook privacy practices anywhere in the world," says Michael Geist. The CBC's coverage spells out <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/07/16/facebook-privacy-commissioner.html">the areas of privacy concern</a>, in particular that nearly a million developers of Facebook apps in 180 countries have full access to the entirety of users' private data. Also of concern: Facebook holds on to your data indefinitely after you quit the site. The BBC notes that Facebook is <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8155367.stm">working with the  privacy commission to resolve the issues</a>, and quotes a Facebook spokesman thus: "Overall, we are looking for practical solutions that operate at scale and respect the fact that people come to share and not to hide." (Schneier recently blogged about research on "<a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/07/privacy\_salienc.html">privacy salience,</a>" and cited Facebook's practices among others' as practical examples of how social networking sites have learned not to push the privacy issue in users' faces.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Myriad and a number of other readers passed along the news that the Canadian Privacy Commissioner has made a determination that Facebook violates Canadian privacy law in four different respects .
Canada has the highest per-capita facebook participation in the world    about a third of the population    according to coverage in The Star .
The EU is also expressing similar privacy concerns , though Canada 's action " represents the most exhaustive official investigation of Facebook privacy practices anywhere in the world , " says Michael Geist .
The CBC 's coverage spells out the areas of privacy concern , in particular that nearly a million developers of Facebook apps in 180 countries have full access to the entirety of users ' private data .
Also of concern : Facebook holds on to your data indefinitely after you quit the site .
The BBC notes that Facebook is working with the privacy commission to resolve the issues , and quotes a Facebook spokesman thus : " Overall , we are looking for practical solutions that operate at scale and respect the fact that people come to share and not to hide .
" ( Schneier recently blogged about research on " privacy salience , " and cited Facebook 's practices among others ' as practical examples of how social networking sites have learned not to push the privacy issue in users ' faces .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Myriad and a number of other readers passed along the news that the Canadian Privacy Commissioner has made a determination that Facebook violates Canadian privacy law in four different respects.
Canada has the highest per-capita facebook participation in the world — about a third of the population — according to coverage in The Star.
The EU is also expressing similar privacy concerns, though Canada's action "represents the most exhaustive official investigation of Facebook privacy practices anywhere in the world," says Michael Geist.
The CBC's coverage spells out the areas of privacy concern, in particular that nearly a million developers of Facebook apps in 180 countries have full access to the entirety of users' private data.
Also of concern: Facebook holds on to your data indefinitely after you quit the site.
The BBC notes that Facebook is working with the  privacy commission to resolve the issues, and quotes a Facebook spokesman thus: "Overall, we are looking for practical solutions that operate at scale and respect the fact that people come to share and not to hide.
" (Schneier recently blogged about research on "privacy salience," and cited Facebook's practices among others' as practical examples of how social networking sites have learned not to push the privacy issue in users' faces.
)</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731053</id>
	<title>The answer is pretty simple</title>
	<author>Minion of Eris</author>
	<datestamp>1247850540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>DO NOT RUN ANY APPS!!! Sorry for shouting, but I have been saying this to people for years now (since the first time i read the terms for FaceBook apps).

I am not knocking FB as a tool in and of itself, in fact I am very grateful to them for letting my daughter find me after 16 years of seperation (true story - she searched my name and sent me a message) but come on, they state clearly that if you want to plant a garden (or whatever) the developer gets to see all of your  info. just Don't Do It.

thanks for the rant-space.</htmltext>
<tokenext>DO NOT RUN ANY APPS ! ! !
Sorry for shouting , but I have been saying this to people for years now ( since the first time i read the terms for FaceBook apps ) .
I am not knocking FB as a tool in and of itself , in fact I am very grateful to them for letting my daughter find me after 16 years of seperation ( true story - she searched my name and sent me a message ) but come on , they state clearly that if you want to plant a garden ( or whatever ) the developer gets to see all of your info .
just Do n't Do It .
thanks for the rant-space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DO NOT RUN ANY APPS!!!
Sorry for shouting, but I have been saying this to people for years now (since the first time i read the terms for FaceBook apps).
I am not knocking FB as a tool in and of itself, in fact I am very grateful to them for letting my daughter find me after 16 years of seperation (true story - she searched my name and sent me a message) but come on, they state clearly that if you want to plant a garden (or whatever) the developer gets to see all of your  info.
just Don't Do It.
thanks for the rant-space.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28742771</id>
	<title>Data retention after account deletion</title>
	<author>Mumberthrax</author>
	<datestamp>1247948520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Slashdot says, "Also of concern: Facebook holds on to your data indefinitely after you quit the site." but Facbook told me otherwise.

After seeing this video <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMWz3G\_gPhU" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMWz3G\_gPhU</a> [youtube.com] I figured i ought to delete my facebook account. Sent an email to facebook, asking about them keeping information related to my account on their data storage media (whether hard disks or otherwise) after a permanent deletion - not a deactivation.

First response from Will at "user oprations" was a stock copy-paste selection from their (not very helpful) help pages about the difference between deletion and deactivation. Sent a clarifying response back to him.

I got this:
"The contract surrounding the Facebook Platform currently forbids storing data the way you suggest. The security of user data is not the charge of the user, but the responsibility of Facebook. Please remember that we are always looking to improve our platform, and we may revisit this in the near future.
Keep your eye on the Developers Homepage Latest News section
(http://developers.facebook.com/) for new information. Please let me know if you have any questions about this."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot says , " Also of concern : Facebook holds on to your data indefinitely after you quit the site .
" but Facbook told me otherwise .
After seeing this video http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = ZMWz3G \ _gPhU [ youtube.com ] I figured i ought to delete my facebook account .
Sent an email to facebook , asking about them keeping information related to my account on their data storage media ( whether hard disks or otherwise ) after a permanent deletion - not a deactivation .
First response from Will at " user oprations " was a stock copy-paste selection from their ( not very helpful ) help pages about the difference between deletion and deactivation .
Sent a clarifying response back to him .
I got this : " The contract surrounding the Facebook Platform currently forbids storing data the way you suggest .
The security of user data is not the charge of the user , but the responsibility of Facebook .
Please remember that we are always looking to improve our platform , and we may revisit this in the near future .
Keep your eye on the Developers Homepage Latest News section ( http : //developers.facebook.com/ ) for new information .
Please let me know if you have any questions about this .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot says, "Also of concern: Facebook holds on to your data indefinitely after you quit the site.
" but Facbook told me otherwise.
After seeing this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMWz3G\_gPhU [youtube.com] I figured i ought to delete my facebook account.
Sent an email to facebook, asking about them keeping information related to my account on their data storage media (whether hard disks or otherwise) after a permanent deletion - not a deactivation.
First response from Will at "user oprations" was a stock copy-paste selection from their (not very helpful) help pages about the difference between deletion and deactivation.
Sent a clarifying response back to him.
I got this:
"The contract surrounding the Facebook Platform currently forbids storing data the way you suggest.
The security of user data is not the charge of the user, but the responsibility of Facebook.
Please remember that we are always looking to improve our platform, and we may revisit this in the near future.
Keep your eye on the Developers Homepage Latest News section
(http://developers.facebook.com/) for new information.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731315</id>
	<title>Facebook app privacy</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1247851800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is an idea facebook.  Give the user an option to not give the app creators 100\% access to the facebook users data.  I reject all of those apps because all of them expect me to give up my data - all of my data.  It is very invasive.<br> <br>

I'm assuming facebook gives this control to the app makers - but as we know - when you have an option and it is free then why not use it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is an idea facebook .
Give the user an option to not give the app creators 100 \ % access to the facebook users data .
I reject all of those apps because all of them expect me to give up my data - all of my data .
It is very invasive .
I 'm assuming facebook gives this control to the app makers - but as we know - when you have an option and it is free then why not use it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is an idea facebook.
Give the user an option to not give the app creators 100\% access to the facebook users data.
I reject all of those apps because all of them expect me to give up my data - all of my data.
It is very invasive.
I'm assuming facebook gives this control to the app makers - but as we know - when you have an option and it is free then why not use it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731493</id>
	<title>"people come to share and not to hide"</title>
	<author>The\_Duck271</author>
	<datestamp>1247852580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read "people come to share and not to hide" as "privacy isn't that important in social networking."

If this is really expressing an attitude that I shouldn't really have an expectation of privacy on Facebook, that's stupid. I should be able to have such an expectation (which isn't to say that I do...).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read " people come to share and not to hide " as " privacy is n't that important in social networking .
" If this is really expressing an attitude that I should n't really have an expectation of privacy on Facebook , that 's stupid .
I should be able to have such an expectation ( which is n't to say that I do... ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read "people come to share and not to hide" as "privacy isn't that important in social networking.
"

If this is really expressing an attitude that I shouldn't really have an expectation of privacy on Facebook, that's stupid.
I should be able to have such an expectation (which isn't to say that I do...).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28734159</id>
	<title>Re:Eventually someone will get screwed over</title>
	<author>turbotroll</author>
	<datestamp>1247821260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We've already seen amusing stories about US/Canadian citizens by chance finding their faces plastered all over stores in Czechoslovakia</p></div><p>Not only Czechoslovakia, I heard that Facebook users from the Holy Roman Empire had a similar experience as well!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've already seen amusing stories about US/Canadian citizens by chance finding their faces plastered all over stores in CzechoslovakiaNot only Czechoslovakia , I heard that Facebook users from the Holy Roman Empire had a similar experience as well !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've already seen amusing stories about US/Canadian citizens by chance finding their faces plastered all over stores in CzechoslovakiaNot only Czechoslovakia, I heard that Facebook users from the Holy Roman Empire had a similar experience as well!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731395</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is pretty simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247852160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've blocked FB at the router level for my business and at my house. Thousands of useless hours saved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've blocked FB at the router level for my business and at my house .
Thousands of useless hours saved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've blocked FB at the router level for my business and at my house.
Thousands of useless hours saved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28738253</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247851380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone actually expect privacy from these networking sites anymore?</p><p>Besides, who puts something on Facebook that they \_want\_ to keep \_private\_?</p></div><p>We expect that privacy if it is promised to us. I don't care what country you're from that much is very plainly understood.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone actually expect privacy from these networking sites anymore ? Besides , who puts something on Facebook that they \ _want \ _ to keep \ _private \ _ ? We expect that privacy if it is promised to us .
I do n't care what country you 're from that much is very plainly understood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone actually expect privacy from these networking sites anymore?Besides, who puts something on Facebook that they \_want\_ to keep \_private\_?We expect that privacy if it is promised to us.
I don't care what country you're from that much is very plainly understood.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731809</id>
	<title>Wouldn't be surprised if it broke British law too</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1247853900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but the UK ICO has only once taken serious action that I'm aware of and it's had the power to do so for 10 years or more.</p><p>Let's see, under UK law:</p><ul> <li>You mustn't send personal data outside the EU without the user's consent unless processes are in place to ensure that UK data protection law is still followed.  All well and good for Facebook itself, but what about applications?</li><li>You mustn't keep personal data any longer than what you need it for.  Yet facebook openly admit that they don't actually delete accounts even when they're asked to.</li></ul><p>And Facebook has offices in London.  So yes, they are subject to this law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but the UK ICO has only once taken serious action that I 'm aware of and it 's had the power to do so for 10 years or more.Let 's see , under UK law : You must n't send personal data outside the EU without the user 's consent unless processes are in place to ensure that UK data protection law is still followed .
All well and good for Facebook itself , but what about applications ? You must n't keep personal data any longer than what you need it for .
Yet facebook openly admit that they do n't actually delete accounts even when they 're asked to.And Facebook has offices in London .
So yes , they are subject to this law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but the UK ICO has only once taken serious action that I'm aware of and it's had the power to do so for 10 years or more.Let's see, under UK law: You mustn't send personal data outside the EU without the user's consent unless processes are in place to ensure that UK data protection law is still followed.
All well and good for Facebook itself, but what about applications?You mustn't keep personal data any longer than what you need it for.
Yet facebook openly admit that they don't actually delete accounts even when they're asked to.And Facebook has offices in London.
So yes, they are subject to this law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731361</id>
	<title>Facebook privacy not that bad!</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1247851980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unlike many slashdoters i feel the need to keep in touch with my friend<b>s</b> outweighs the need to live in a basement with a tinfoilhot keeping my data (that nobody wants as anyway) private, so i do have a facebook account *gasp*. I have always taken care to keep my data private though, this is so that while i can tell my friends that im a racist, in-bread(hence all the spelling mistakes), thieving, crack addict, hopefully prospective employers will never know about it. It's surprising that facebook is in trouble now, because i was surprised at how well i can keep my data private while still using 3rd party apps. Originally there was no privacy on FB, then you could protect yourself from facebook themselves, but if you installed one bad app all your data goes straight to the CIA, now this page, that i noticed the other day in my regular app clean-up (how could i not accept an invite to pacman), allows you pretty granular control over your data, ranging from all your data (which some apps may use) to "name, networks, and list of friends", which I'm pretty happy to hand out.</p><p>Privacy is not black/white, i was never happy giving a stupid flash game developer access to all my information for whatever evil purposes they have, but tbh ill trade my list of friends and name (which they can surely indirectly get from my friends list of friends) for a stupid flash game anyday! I assume the problem the canadians have is that even without installing any apps, if all my friends do they get access to my name, my list of friends, my wall posts, photos of me taken by others and photos of others including me. Perhaps that will be the next push in the facebook privacy API, stopping friends from giving <b>your</b> data away?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike many slashdoters i feel the need to keep in touch with my friends outweighs the need to live in a basement with a tinfoilhot keeping my data ( that nobody wants as anyway ) private , so i do have a facebook account * gasp * .
I have always taken care to keep my data private though , this is so that while i can tell my friends that im a racist , in-bread ( hence all the spelling mistakes ) , thieving , crack addict , hopefully prospective employers will never know about it .
It 's surprising that facebook is in trouble now , because i was surprised at how well i can keep my data private while still using 3rd party apps .
Originally there was no privacy on FB , then you could protect yourself from facebook themselves , but if you installed one bad app all your data goes straight to the CIA , now this page , that i noticed the other day in my regular app clean-up ( how could i not accept an invite to pacman ) , allows you pretty granular control over your data , ranging from all your data ( which some apps may use ) to " name , networks , and list of friends " , which I 'm pretty happy to hand out.Privacy is not black/white , i was never happy giving a stupid flash game developer access to all my information for whatever evil purposes they have , but tbh ill trade my list of friends and name ( which they can surely indirectly get from my friends list of friends ) for a stupid flash game anyday !
I assume the problem the canadians have is that even without installing any apps , if all my friends do they get access to my name , my list of friends , my wall posts , photos of me taken by others and photos of others including me .
Perhaps that will be the next push in the facebook privacy API , stopping friends from giving your data away ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike many slashdoters i feel the need to keep in touch with my friends outweighs the need to live in a basement with a tinfoilhot keeping my data (that nobody wants as anyway) private, so i do have a facebook account *gasp*.
I have always taken care to keep my data private though, this is so that while i can tell my friends that im a racist, in-bread(hence all the spelling mistakes), thieving, crack addict, hopefully prospective employers will never know about it.
It's surprising that facebook is in trouble now, because i was surprised at how well i can keep my data private while still using 3rd party apps.
Originally there was no privacy on FB, then you could protect yourself from facebook themselves, but if you installed one bad app all your data goes straight to the CIA, now this page, that i noticed the other day in my regular app clean-up (how could i not accept an invite to pacman), allows you pretty granular control over your data, ranging from all your data (which some apps may use) to "name, networks, and list of friends", which I'm pretty happy to hand out.Privacy is not black/white, i was never happy giving a stupid flash game developer access to all my information for whatever evil purposes they have, but tbh ill trade my list of friends and name (which they can surely indirectly get from my friends list of friends) for a stupid flash game anyday!
I assume the problem the canadians have is that even without installing any apps, if all my friends do they get access to my name, my list of friends, my wall posts, photos of me taken by others and photos of others including me.
Perhaps that will be the next push in the facebook privacy API, stopping friends from giving your data away?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28738141</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247850120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone actually expect privacy from these networking sites anymore?</p><p>Besides, who puts something on Facebook that they \_want\_ to keep \_private\_?</p></div><p>The issue isn't always that people are posting stuff or pix of themselves...it's when other people do. I cannot control the pictures that friends of mine post; only whether my name will show up associated with the pic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone actually expect privacy from these networking sites anymore ? Besides , who puts something on Facebook that they \ _want \ _ to keep \ _private \ _ ? The issue is n't always that people are posting stuff or pix of themselves...it 's when other people do .
I can not control the pictures that friends of mine post ; only whether my name will show up associated with the pic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone actually expect privacy from these networking sites anymore?Besides, who puts something on Facebook that they \_want\_ to keep \_private\_?The issue isn't always that people are posting stuff or pix of themselves...it's when other people do.
I cannot control the pictures that friends of mine post; only whether my name will show up associated with the pic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731557</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>psyklopz</author>
	<datestamp>1247852880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is worth noting that Facebook violates privacy of more than just its members.</p><p>The summary does not mention this, but one of the things the Canadian study found was that users of Facebook can post photos and Tag the names of each person in the photo (whether they are on Facebook or not).</p><p>I believe there are good reasons why a non-Facebook user would not want their images posted, and for that matter, have a searchable Tag posted against that image.</p><p>Presently, I can't 'opt-out' of images of myself being posted by members, even though I am not on Facebook.</p><p>And on the same subject-- should I even need to 'opt-out'?  Maybe they should require 'opt-in'?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is worth noting that Facebook violates privacy of more than just its members.The summary does not mention this , but one of the things the Canadian study found was that users of Facebook can post photos and Tag the names of each person in the photo ( whether they are on Facebook or not ) .I believe there are good reasons why a non-Facebook user would not want their images posted , and for that matter , have a searchable Tag posted against that image.Presently , I ca n't 'opt-out ' of images of myself being posted by members , even though I am not on Facebook.And on the same subject-- should I even need to 'opt-out ' ?
Maybe they should require 'opt-in ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is worth noting that Facebook violates privacy of more than just its members.The summary does not mention this, but one of the things the Canadian study found was that users of Facebook can post photos and Tag the names of each person in the photo (whether they are on Facebook or not).I believe there are good reasons why a non-Facebook user would not want their images posted, and for that matter, have a searchable Tag posted against that image.Presently, I can't 'opt-out' of images of myself being posted by members, even though I am not on Facebook.And on the same subject-- should I even need to 'opt-out'?
Maybe they should require 'opt-in'?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731543</id>
	<title>Re:Priorities</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1247852760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section\_Eight\_of\_the\_Canadian\_Charter\_of\_Rights\_and\_Freedoms" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section\_Eight\_of\_the\_Canadian\_Charter\_of\_Rights\_and\_Freedoms</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>It's more or less equivalent to the US forth amendment.  However, our tougher privacy laws seem to indicate that Canadians are more interested in the government actually obeying the spirit of the charter section, rather than making excuses to try and get around it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section \ _Eight \ _of \ _the \ _Canadian \ _Charter \ _of \ _Rights \ _and \ _Freedoms [ wikipedia.org ] It 's more or less equivalent to the US forth amendment .
However , our tougher privacy laws seem to indicate that Canadians are more interested in the government actually obeying the spirit of the charter section , rather than making excuses to try and get around it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section\_Eight\_of\_the\_Canadian\_Charter\_of\_Rights\_and\_Freedoms [wikipedia.org]It's more or less equivalent to the US forth amendment.
However, our tougher privacy laws seem to indicate that Canadians are more interested in the government actually obeying the spirit of the charter section, rather than making excuses to try and get around it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731051</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1247850540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some people use Facebook to keep in touch with friends, not to post compromising pictures of themselves.    Most Facebook profiles these days are only available to friends of the owner.</p><p>The apps thing has always bothered me about Facebook.  The vast majority of apps are stupid and easy to ignore but there are a few interesting ones that I might use except that the only way to do so seems to be to give the free run of any and all personal information.  Why did a game of Scrabble need to know anything more than my user number?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people use Facebook to keep in touch with friends , not to post compromising pictures of themselves .
Most Facebook profiles these days are only available to friends of the owner.The apps thing has always bothered me about Facebook .
The vast majority of apps are stupid and easy to ignore but there are a few interesting ones that I might use except that the only way to do so seems to be to give the free run of any and all personal information .
Why did a game of Scrabble need to know anything more than my user number ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people use Facebook to keep in touch with friends, not to post compromising pictures of themselves.
Most Facebook profiles these days are only available to friends of the owner.The apps thing has always bothered me about Facebook.
The vast majority of apps are stupid and easy to ignore but there are a few interesting ones that I might use except that the only way to do so seems to be to give the free run of any and all personal information.
Why did a game of Scrabble need to know anything more than my user number?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731105</id>
	<title>Don't you have to accept first?</title>
	<author>hansraj</author>
	<datestamp>1247850780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, the thing with holding onto your data after you have closed your account is a genuine point, but don't you see the "allow app xzy to access your profile data?" warning clear enough? If you willingly let someone pull your profile data then for sure there is no violation of a law. Well either that or Canada has some crazy laws in this regard.</p><p>It is annoying nevertheless that you can't select what portion of your profile data is visible to some app.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , the thing with holding onto your data after you have closed your account is a genuine point , but do n't you see the " allow app xzy to access your profile data ?
" warning clear enough ?
If you willingly let someone pull your profile data then for sure there is no violation of a law .
Well either that or Canada has some crazy laws in this regard.It is annoying nevertheless that you ca n't select what portion of your profile data is visible to some app .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, the thing with holding onto your data after you have closed your account is a genuine point, but don't you see the "allow app xzy to access your profile data?
" warning clear enough?
If you willingly let someone pull your profile data then for sure there is no violation of a law.
Well either that or Canada has some crazy laws in this regard.It is annoying nevertheless that you can't select what portion of your profile data is visible to some app.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28733701</id>
	<title>ONE THIRD of Canada on FB</title>
	<author>gobbo</author>
	<datestamp>1247862360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if Facebook doesn't have a Canadian legal entity, nor Canadian hosting, the answer is "who cares"?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... Just because there's users on FB from all around the world, it doesn't mean that FB has to abide by all countries' laws.  If that were the case, the Internet would be a hobbled and useless mess.</p></div><p>You may be right about most things internet-wise. However, Facebook is an interesting case; fully <strong>one-third</strong> of the canadian population subscribes to FB (so a much more sizeable proportion of internet users), and thus the privacy commissioner is well within their mandate to ring alarms by whatever means necessary. The implications are enormous.<br>The nature of Facebook's control over the personal information of our citizens means that if we don't have a clear legal means to manage privacy issues of our nation, the gov rightly feels a need to seek such means. I'm in favour of education over regulation, but something has to be done. I've been ranting about FB's ToS for years, but few seem to care. We have warnings on cigarette packages, for instance. That's a good idea.<br>If one third of Canada is engaged in a transaction from their own homes, saying that that is not business conducted in Canada rings a bit false, don't you think? It isn't a technical stretch to divide such major sites into country regions. Google, for instance, easily resolves my visits to google.ca based on IP, whereas facebook.ca redirects to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com.<br>As usual, the internet throws all former definitions of communication into doubt.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if Facebook does n't have a Canadian legal entity , nor Canadian hosting , the answer is " who cares " ?
.... Just because there 's users on FB from all around the world , it does n't mean that FB has to abide by all countries ' laws .
If that were the case , the Internet would be a hobbled and useless mess.You may be right about most things internet-wise .
However , Facebook is an interesting case ; fully one-third of the canadian population subscribes to FB ( so a much more sizeable proportion of internet users ) , and thus the privacy commissioner is well within their mandate to ring alarms by whatever means necessary .
The implications are enormous.The nature of Facebook 's control over the personal information of our citizens means that if we do n't have a clear legal means to manage privacy issues of our nation , the gov rightly feels a need to seek such means .
I 'm in favour of education over regulation , but something has to be done .
I 've been ranting about FB 's ToS for years , but few seem to care .
We have warnings on cigarette packages , for instance .
That 's a good idea.If one third of Canada is engaged in a transaction from their own homes , saying that that is not business conducted in Canada rings a bit false , do n't you think ?
It is n't a technical stretch to divide such major sites into country regions .
Google , for instance , easily resolves my visits to google.ca based on IP , whereas facebook.ca redirects to the .com.As usual , the internet throws all former definitions of communication into doubt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if Facebook doesn't have a Canadian legal entity, nor Canadian hosting, the answer is "who cares"?
.... Just because there's users on FB from all around the world, it doesn't mean that FB has to abide by all countries' laws.
If that were the case, the Internet would be a hobbled and useless mess.You may be right about most things internet-wise.
However, Facebook is an interesting case; fully one-third of the canadian population subscribes to FB (so a much more sizeable proportion of internet users), and thus the privacy commissioner is well within their mandate to ring alarms by whatever means necessary.
The implications are enormous.The nature of Facebook's control over the personal information of our citizens means that if we don't have a clear legal means to manage privacy issues of our nation, the gov rightly feels a need to seek such means.
I'm in favour of education over regulation, but something has to be done.
I've been ranting about FB's ToS for years, but few seem to care.
We have warnings on cigarette packages, for instance.
That's a good idea.If one third of Canada is engaged in a transaction from their own homes, saying that that is not business conducted in Canada rings a bit false, don't you think?
It isn't a technical stretch to divide such major sites into country regions.
Google, for instance, easily resolves my visits to google.ca based on IP, whereas facebook.ca redirects to the .com.As usual, the internet throws all former definitions of communication into doubt.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731269</id>
	<title>Re:Don't you have to accept first?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247851560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but dude, I want to spend hours a day growing a virtual garden.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but dude , I want to spend hours a day growing a virtual garden .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but dude, I want to spend hours a day growing a virtual garden.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731963</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>vandit2k6</author>
	<datestamp>1247854500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Omg, when I apply for a job they usually ask to make a copy of my passport and you're cautious about giving them your birth date!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Omg , when I apply for a job they usually ask to make a copy of my passport and you 're cautious about giving them your birth date !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Omg, when I apply for a job they usually ask to make a copy of my passport and you're cautious about giving them your birth date!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730891</id>
	<title>First Poke</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247849820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>frosty pist</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>frosty pist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>frosty pist</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732659</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>Garbad Ropedink</author>
	<datestamp>1247857560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a reasonable expectation.<br>For example my private information shouldn't automatically be made available to some third party just because some half-wit on my friends list took at 'Which punctuation mark are you?' quiz.</p><p>I can't view other peoples profiles if they don't want me to, unless I make some idiotic quiz that they take.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a reasonable expectation.For example my private information should n't automatically be made available to some third party just because some half-wit on my friends list took at 'Which punctuation mark are you ?
' quiz.I ca n't view other peoples profiles if they do n't want me to , unless I make some idiotic quiz that they take .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a reasonable expectation.For example my private information shouldn't automatically be made available to some third party just because some half-wit on my friends list took at 'Which punctuation mark are you?
' quiz.I can't view other peoples profiles if they don't want me to, unless I make some idiotic quiz that they take.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28733271</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1247860380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>kid postssomething stupid they did oy tohave</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't face a facebook account(I am not narsisstic enough) yet I hear about that crap 2-3times a month.</p></div><p>I hear you man. It's almost pushed me to drink too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>kid postssomething stupid they did oy tohaveI do n't face a facebook account ( I am not narsisstic enough ) yet I hear about that crap 2-3times a month.I hear you man .
It 's almost pushed me to drink too : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kid postssomething stupid they did oy tohaveI don't face a facebook account(I am not narsisstic enough) yet I hear about that crap 2-3times a month.I hear you man.
It's almost pushed me to drink too :(
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732317</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247856000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> You have to provide some personal information especially your birth date, which is illegal for a prospect employer to ask.</p></div><p>Really?  How do you prove you are of legal age to work?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to provide some personal information especially your birth date , which is illegal for a prospect employer to ask.Really ?
How do you prove you are of legal age to work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You have to provide some personal information especially your birth date, which is illegal for a prospect employer to ask.Really?
How do you prove you are of legal age to work?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731047</id>
	<title>Are their servers even in Canada?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247850540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If their servers aren't in Canada, why does this matter? Or perhaps maybe they do have some sort of CDN (Content Delivery, not Canadian) network here due to 1/3 our population being on the site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If their servers are n't in Canada , why does this matter ?
Or perhaps maybe they do have some sort of CDN ( Content Delivery , not Canadian ) network here due to 1/3 our population being on the site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If their servers aren't in Canada, why does this matter?
Or perhaps maybe they do have some sort of CDN (Content Delivery, not Canadian) network here due to 1/3 our population being on the site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28735437</id>
	<title>Iceland is #1 per capita</title>
	<author>thisissilly</author>
	<datestamp>1247827740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Iceland has an astounding 46.89\% of its population on Facebook (since you have to be over 13 to join FB, that means over 50\% of adults in Iceland are on Facebook).  Norway and Denmark also beat out Canada on a per-capita, with  40.25\% and 38.28\%.  Canada is #4 with 34.37\%.
<br>
And for those that care, the USA stands at #14 with 19.55\%.
<br>
Data taken from <a href="http://www.nickburcher.com/2009/04/facebook-usage-statistics-by-population.html" title="nickburcher.com">http://www.nickburcher.com/2009/04/facebook-usage-statistics-by-population.html</a> [nickburcher.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Iceland has an astounding 46.89 \ % of its population on Facebook ( since you have to be over 13 to join FB , that means over 50 \ % of adults in Iceland are on Facebook ) .
Norway and Denmark also beat out Canada on a per-capita , with 40.25 \ % and 38.28 \ % .
Canada is # 4 with 34.37 \ % .
And for those that care , the USA stands at # 14 with 19.55 \ % .
Data taken from http : //www.nickburcher.com/2009/04/facebook-usage-statistics-by-population.html [ nickburcher.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Iceland has an astounding 46.89\% of its population on Facebook (since you have to be over 13 to join FB, that means over 50\% of adults in Iceland are on Facebook).
Norway and Denmark also beat out Canada on a per-capita, with  40.25\% and 38.28\%.
Canada is #4 with 34.37\%.
And for those that care, the USA stands at #14 with 19.55\%.
Data taken from http://www.nickburcher.com/2009/04/facebook-usage-statistics-by-population.html [nickburcher.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28738241</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247851320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also Canadian - and totally agree. If our government really doesn't like FB they should request that our ISPs block the site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also Canadian - and totally agree .
If our government really does n't like FB they should request that our ISPs block the site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also Canadian - and totally agree.
If our government really doesn't like FB they should request that our ISPs block the site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731097</id>
	<title>What about my mafia?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247850780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They can shut down Canada as long as the size of my Mafia does not suffer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They can shut down Canada as long as the size of my Mafia does not suffer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They can shut down Canada as long as the size of my Mafia does not suffer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730987</id>
	<title>Easy data mining for 3rd parties</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247850300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everybody seems to expect that Facebook has all this information, the issue is with applications/quizzes. By setting up some stupid quiz, you can collect contact and network data on everyone who fills it out. This could be used for everything from marketing research to "investigation" of various social/political groups.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everybody seems to expect that Facebook has all this information , the issue is with applications/quizzes .
By setting up some stupid quiz , you can collect contact and network data on everyone who fills it out .
This could be used for everything from marketing research to " investigation " of various social/political groups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everybody seems to expect that Facebook has all this information, the issue is with applications/quizzes.
By setting up some stupid quiz, you can collect contact and network data on everyone who fills it out.
This could be used for everything from marketing research to "investigation" of various social/political groups.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731103</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1247850780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They still do business in Canada when they sell ads for Canadian companies/sell stuff to Canadians/etc, now they could lose that revenue, or they could work with officials to improve the privacy of their users, thus keeping that revenue while improving their site. Do facebook really want to lose 11m users worth of revenue (and probably more long term as the EU may follow suit) ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They still do business in Canada when they sell ads for Canadian companies/sell stuff to Canadians/etc , now they could lose that revenue , or they could work with officials to improve the privacy of their users , thus keeping that revenue while improving their site .
Do facebook really want to lose 11m users worth of revenue ( and probably more long term as the EU may follow suit ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They still do business in Canada when they sell ads for Canadian companies/sell stuff to Canadians/etc, now they could lose that revenue, or they could work with officials to improve the privacy of their users, thus keeping that revenue while improving their site.
Do facebook really want to lose 11m users worth of revenue (and probably more long term as the EU may follow suit) ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730963</id>
	<title>Simple solution</title>
	<author>javacowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1247850180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All Facebook needs to do is shut down all its servers in Canada and require Canadians to log into the U.S. site.  Then it's no longer bound by Canadian law.   Problem solved!</p><p>Also, this is one of the reasons why I refuse to use Facebook, despite the fact that my condo association was too lazy to develop a website and wants us all to log into their Facebook page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All Facebook needs to do is shut down all its servers in Canada and require Canadians to log into the U.S. site. Then it 's no longer bound by Canadian law .
Problem solved ! Also , this is one of the reasons why I refuse to use Facebook , despite the fact that my condo association was too lazy to develop a website and wants us all to log into their Facebook page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All Facebook needs to do is shut down all its servers in Canada and require Canadians to log into the U.S. site.  Then it's no longer bound by Canadian law.
Problem solved!Also, this is one of the reasons why I refuse to use Facebook, despite the fact that my condo association was too lazy to develop a website and wants us all to log into their Facebook page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732095</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>ivoras</author>
	<datestamp>1247855040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Presently, I can't 'opt-out' of images of myself being posted by members, even though I am not on Facebook.

And on the same subject-- should I even need to 'opt-out'? Maybe they should require 'opt-in'?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>No, for the same reasons you can't stop anyone creating a web site (e.g. a blog) with a picture of you and the caption "This is $yourname", posting a picture of you with the same caption on a usenet group, or going to a bar, holding your picture in the air and shouting "This is a picture of $yourname".</p><p>Iff those things I enumerated could be effectively controlled and prevented, you have a reasonable chance of it succeeding with Facebook. In a society that allowed that, you also have a reasonable chance of dressing in black, worshiping a Fuhrer figure and oppressing a random minority because you officially hate the shape of their nose.</p><p>Today, everyone's famous for five mouse clicks or something such...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Presently , I ca n't 'opt-out ' of images of myself being posted by members , even though I am not on Facebook .
And on the same subject-- should I even need to 'opt-out ' ?
Maybe they should require 'opt-in ' ?
No , for the same reasons you ca n't stop anyone creating a web site ( e.g .
a blog ) with a picture of you and the caption " This is $ yourname " , posting a picture of you with the same caption on a usenet group , or going to a bar , holding your picture in the air and shouting " This is a picture of $ yourname " .Iff those things I enumerated could be effectively controlled and prevented , you have a reasonable chance of it succeeding with Facebook .
In a society that allowed that , you also have a reasonable chance of dressing in black , worshiping a Fuhrer figure and oppressing a random minority because you officially hate the shape of their nose.Today , everyone 's famous for five mouse clicks or something such.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presently, I can't 'opt-out' of images of myself being posted by members, even though I am not on Facebook.
And on the same subject-- should I even need to 'opt-out'?
Maybe they should require 'opt-in'?
No, for the same reasons you can't stop anyone creating a web site (e.g.
a blog) with a picture of you and the caption "This is $yourname", posting a picture of you with the same caption on a usenet group, or going to a bar, holding your picture in the air and shouting "This is a picture of $yourname".Iff those things I enumerated could be effectively controlled and prevented, you have a reasonable chance of it succeeding with Facebook.
In a society that allowed that, you also have a reasonable chance of dressing in black, worshiping a Fuhrer figure and oppressing a random minority because you officially hate the shape of their nose.Today, everyone's famous for five mouse clicks or something such...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28737351</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247840940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YES. I. FREAKIN. DO!</p><p>I do not think that they will keep it private though.</p><p>But I do think that private data should have a huge price tag on it (think infringement), and that Facebook should then be sued for it, and for making money out of it.</p><p>So much that they not only go down, but will have to work off debt for the rest of their lives.</p><p>But there is one more rule: Give them one, and just one, chance to fix it. A month should be enough, and be realistic. Also bugs are not intended breaches of privacy, and have to be handled differently. (=hurt much less, but still hurt.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YES .
I. FREAKIN .
DO ! I do not think that they will keep it private though.But I do think that private data should have a huge price tag on it ( think infringement ) , and that Facebook should then be sued for it , and for making money out of it.So much that they not only go down , but will have to work off debt for the rest of their lives.But there is one more rule : Give them one , and just one , chance to fix it .
A month should be enough , and be realistic .
Also bugs are not intended breaches of privacy , and have to be handled differently .
( = hurt much less , but still hurt .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YES.
I. FREAKIN.
DO!I do not think that they will keep it private though.But I do think that private data should have a huge price tag on it (think infringement), and that Facebook should then be sued for it, and for making money out of it.So much that they not only go down, but will have to work off debt for the rest of their lives.But there is one more rule: Give them one, and just one, chance to fix it.
A month should be enough, and be realistic.
Also bugs are not intended breaches of privacy, and have to be handled differently.
(=hurt much less, but still hurt.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731649</id>
	<title>People are surprised when I have this conversation</title>
	<author>topham</author>
	<datestamp>1247853240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People are surprised when I have this conversation with them.</p><p>They think I'm nuts until I make it clear that the reason I don't make stupid little facebook apps is because I don't agree with their information sharing.<br>I use facebook (no, I have an account, I seldom use it), but I don't add apps.</p><p>Do what you want, but I think Facebook should make it perfectly clear what type of information is being given to app developers. A checklist confirming what type of information that particular developer gets access to. Something clear, and obvious. I suspect the number of apps, and type of apps, people would add would be substantially different.</p><p>Facebook, even under Canadian law, can share all the same data. They must however make it very clear what is actually being shared and with whom. (So that the user can go back to the companaies involved and file with them to have the information removed).</p><p>To the extent that Facebook advertises and offers services directly to Canadians they should be held to the same legal requirements as anyone else. By the way, the Canadian privacy act is actually quite lenient, if people are properly informed of the information to be shared.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People are surprised when I have this conversation with them.They think I 'm nuts until I make it clear that the reason I do n't make stupid little facebook apps is because I do n't agree with their information sharing.I use facebook ( no , I have an account , I seldom use it ) , but I do n't add apps.Do what you want , but I think Facebook should make it perfectly clear what type of information is being given to app developers .
A checklist confirming what type of information that particular developer gets access to .
Something clear , and obvious .
I suspect the number of apps , and type of apps , people would add would be substantially different.Facebook , even under Canadian law , can share all the same data .
They must however make it very clear what is actually being shared and with whom .
( So that the user can go back to the companaies involved and file with them to have the information removed ) .To the extent that Facebook advertises and offers services directly to Canadians they should be held to the same legal requirements as anyone else .
By the way , the Canadian privacy act is actually quite lenient , if people are properly informed of the information to be shared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are surprised when I have this conversation with them.They think I'm nuts until I make it clear that the reason I don't make stupid little facebook apps is because I don't agree with their information sharing.I use facebook (no, I have an account, I seldom use it), but I don't add apps.Do what you want, but I think Facebook should make it perfectly clear what type of information is being given to app developers.
A checklist confirming what type of information that particular developer gets access to.
Something clear, and obvious.
I suspect the number of apps, and type of apps, people would add would be substantially different.Facebook, even under Canadian law, can share all the same data.
They must however make it very clear what is actually being shared and with whom.
(So that the user can go back to the companaies involved and file with them to have the information removed).To the extent that Facebook advertises and offers services directly to Canadians they should be held to the same legal requirements as anyone else.
By the way, the Canadian privacy act is actually quite lenient, if people are properly informed of the information to be shared.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732501</id>
	<title>Lie</title>
	<author>aclarke</author>
	<datestamp>1247856840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My position is to never provide information like my birthdate to any web site, with very few exceptions.  If a web site asks for my birth date, I lie.
<br> <br>
I know this doesn't really address your issue, but it's a point worth making for anyone who bothers to read this comment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My position is to never provide information like my birthdate to any web site , with very few exceptions .
If a web site asks for my birth date , I lie .
I know this does n't really address your issue , but it 's a point worth making for anyone who bothers to read this comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My position is to never provide information like my birthdate to any web site, with very few exceptions.
If a web site asks for my birth date, I lie.
I know this doesn't really address your issue, but it's a point worth making for anyone who bothers to read this comment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732339</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>ShieldW0lf</author>
	<datestamp>1247856060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Besides, who puts something on Facebook that they \_want\_ to keep \_private\_?</i> <br> <br>
Facebook made it's mark by being a place you could safely share things that were only meant for friends and family.  It offered a place where you had some privacy and could put up pictures that you wouldn't put on the general internet.  That was what made it go big.  People who would never put their kids pictures up on a my myspace profile felt this was a safe way to share pictures with grandma.<br> <br>
It was all a big snow job, but still, that was how Facebook came to be big.  Facebook users indeed came there to put things up that they wanted to keep private.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , who puts something on Facebook that they \ _want \ _ to keep \ _private \ _ ?
Facebook made it 's mark by being a place you could safely share things that were only meant for friends and family .
It offered a place where you had some privacy and could put up pictures that you would n't put on the general internet .
That was what made it go big .
People who would never put their kids pictures up on a my myspace profile felt this was a safe way to share pictures with grandma .
It was all a big snow job , but still , that was how Facebook came to be big .
Facebook users indeed came there to put things up that they wanted to keep private .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, who puts something on Facebook that they \_want\_ to keep \_private\_?
Facebook made it's mark by being a place you could safely share things that were only meant for friends and family.
It offered a place where you had some privacy and could put up pictures that you wouldn't put on the general internet.
That was what made it go big.
People who would never put their kids pictures up on a my myspace profile felt this was a safe way to share pictures with grandma.
It was all a big snow job, but still, that was how Facebook came to be big.
Facebook users indeed came there to put things up that they wanted to keep private.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732929</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>Maximus633</author>
	<datestamp>1247858580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is to stop them from putting your name in the caption field?  Nothing.  So if I can post a comment or put your name some where on the page then me putting up a "tag" with your name won't change the fact that you still couldn't stop me from posting your name in a comment or caption field.<p>
The other side to this is that if you don't want your picture displayed on a page then ask the owner of the picture to not post it.  A friend would respect your privacy. </p><p>
With all due respect to everyone.  Pictures can be posted by anyone that takes them.  Sure you can request them to be blurred or taken down if they are of just you but the fact is that they can still be posted.  Everyone getting up in arms about this really should be telling their friends to respect them and not post pictures with your face/body in them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is to stop them from putting your name in the caption field ?
Nothing. So if I can post a comment or put your name some where on the page then me putting up a " tag " with your name wo n't change the fact that you still could n't stop me from posting your name in a comment or caption field .
The other side to this is that if you do n't want your picture displayed on a page then ask the owner of the picture to not post it .
A friend would respect your privacy .
With all due respect to everyone .
Pictures can be posted by anyone that takes them .
Sure you can request them to be blurred or taken down if they are of just you but the fact is that they can still be posted .
Everyone getting up in arms about this really should be telling their friends to respect them and not post pictures with your face/body in them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is to stop them from putting your name in the caption field?
Nothing.  So if I can post a comment or put your name some where on the page then me putting up a "tag" with your name won't change the fact that you still couldn't stop me from posting your name in a comment or caption field.
The other side to this is that if you don't want your picture displayed on a page then ask the owner of the picture to not post it.
A friend would respect your privacy.
With all due respect to everyone.
Pictures can be posted by anyone that takes them.
Sure you can request them to be blurred or taken down if they are of just you but the fact is that they can still be posted.
Everyone getting up in arms about this really should be telling their friends to respect them and not post pictures with your face/body in them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731451</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>Beardo the Bearded</author>
	<datestamp>1247852400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not the point.</p><p>The point is that Facebook is disclosing personal information to any developer that asks for it, without regard to what the information is, or what use the developer has for the information. That's against Canadian law.</p><p>The quote in the article states it most clearly: "Why does a hangman developer have to know your address?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not the point.The point is that Facebook is disclosing personal information to any developer that asks for it , without regard to what the information is , or what use the developer has for the information .
That 's against Canadian law.The quote in the article states it most clearly : " Why does a hangman developer have to know your address ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not the point.The point is that Facebook is disclosing personal information to any developer that asks for it, without regard to what the information is, or what use the developer has for the information.
That's against Canadian law.The quote in the article states it most clearly: "Why does a hangman developer have to know your address?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28733213</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is pretty simple</title>
	<author>Sporkinum</author>
	<datestamp>1247860080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happens if someone that has you as a friend does an app? Are you compromised then? I have only created 1 account with all bogus information, just to see what the damned facebook thing looks like. That account has no friends. It's a very sad account...;-(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happens if someone that has you as a friend does an app ?
Are you compromised then ?
I have only created 1 account with all bogus information , just to see what the damned facebook thing looks like .
That account has no friends .
It 's a very sad account... ; - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happens if someone that has you as a friend does an app?
Are you compromised then?
I have only created 1 account with all bogus information, just to see what the damned facebook thing looks like.
That account has no friends.
It's a very sad account...;-(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731081</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247850720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's one thing that disturbed me about Facebook: I wanted to apply for a position there, but you need a Facebook account in order to do so. So why not ? You have to provide some personal information especially your birth date, which is illegal for a prospect employer to ask.</p><p>I understand the recruiters might not look actively look for your birth date, yet now it's there for them to look at, forever in their database.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's one thing that disturbed me about Facebook : I wanted to apply for a position there , but you need a Facebook account in order to do so .
So why not ?
You have to provide some personal information especially your birth date , which is illegal for a prospect employer to ask.I understand the recruiters might not look actively look for your birth date , yet now it 's there for them to look at , forever in their database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's one thing that disturbed me about Facebook: I wanted to apply for a position there, but you need a Facebook account in order to do so.
So why not ?
You have to provide some personal information especially your birth date, which is illegal for a prospect employer to ask.I understand the recruiters might not look actively look for your birth date, yet now it's there for them to look at, forever in their database.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731013</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247850420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone actually expect privacy from these networking sites anymore?</p> </div><p>Yes many people do, not all countries believe so strongly in the market as the US and we often want restrictions put on businesses to keep our data the way we want it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Besides, who puts something on Facebook that they \_want\_ to keep \_private\_?</p></div><p>People with <b>friends</b>, FB is not myspace (its not a site to go meet random people off the internet with) it's a site to allow friends (of varying levels of technical competency) to keep in touch and communicate. I put stuff i want my friends to see on my facebook profile that perhaps i don't want everybody in the world to know about! embarrassing pictures people take of me can be tagged on facebook, tbh i don't care if my mates see me passed out in a field but i sure as hell don't want everybody on the internet (including prospective employers) to see it. If i have a choice between<br>1)total privacy<br>2)a convenient way being able to organise events and nights out much easier at the expense of privacy.<br>I'm going to choose 2, however if that expense can be reduced then that is great.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone actually expect privacy from these networking sites anymore ?
Yes many people do , not all countries believe so strongly in the market as the US and we often want restrictions put on businesses to keep our data the way we want it.Besides , who puts something on Facebook that they \ _want \ _ to keep \ _private \ _ ? People with friends , FB is not myspace ( its not a site to go meet random people off the internet with ) it 's a site to allow friends ( of varying levels of technical competency ) to keep in touch and communicate .
I put stuff i want my friends to see on my facebook profile that perhaps i do n't want everybody in the world to know about !
embarrassing pictures people take of me can be tagged on facebook , tbh i do n't care if my mates see me passed out in a field but i sure as hell do n't want everybody on the internet ( including prospective employers ) to see it .
If i have a choice between1 ) total privacy2 ) a convenient way being able to organise events and nights out much easier at the expense of privacy.I 'm going to choose 2 , however if that expense can be reduced then that is great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone actually expect privacy from these networking sites anymore?
Yes many people do, not all countries believe so strongly in the market as the US and we often want restrictions put on businesses to keep our data the way we want it.Besides, who puts something on Facebook that they \_want\_ to keep \_private\_?People with friends, FB is not myspace (its not a site to go meet random people off the internet with) it's a site to allow friends (of varying levels of technical competency) to keep in touch and communicate.
I put stuff i want my friends to see on my facebook profile that perhaps i don't want everybody in the world to know about!
embarrassing pictures people take of me can be tagged on facebook, tbh i don't care if my mates see me passed out in a field but i sure as hell don't want everybody on the internet (including prospective employers) to see it.
If i have a choice between1)total privacy2)a convenient way being able to organise events and nights out much easier at the expense of privacy.I'm going to choose 2, however if that expense can be reduced then that is great.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732699</id>
	<title>Compartmentalization</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247857680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization\_(intelligence)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Compartmentalization</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>This is a concept that is entirely obvious to anyone who has anything to do with information/intelligence security, of which privacy is or should be a particular case. Since the web is known to be, um, problematic in matters of privacy, one would think it should be obvious to whoever runs third-party software to give it only the information it needs. For example, for a poll, exactly NO personal information is needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Compartmentalization [ wikipedia.org ] .This is a concept that is entirely obvious to anyone who has anything to do with information/intelligence security , of which privacy is or should be a particular case .
Since the web is known to be , um , problematic in matters of privacy , one would think it should be obvious to whoever runs third-party software to give it only the information it needs .
For example , for a poll , exactly NO personal information is needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compartmentalization [wikipedia.org].This is a concept that is entirely obvious to anyone who has anything to do with information/intelligence security, of which privacy is or should be a particular case.
Since the web is known to be, um, problematic in matters of privacy, one would think it should be obvious to whoever runs third-party software to give it only the information it needs.
For example, for a poll, exactly NO personal information is needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731241</id>
	<title>They prompt you</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1247851320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any time you agree to take one of those quizes etc, Facebook pops up a GIANT box in your face basically saying that if you agree to take that quiz then you give all rights to your information and your first bord child to the developers of that application.</p><p>If the user is too stupid to read a giant disclaimer right in their face and decide it is not worth that risk to find out how much alike their taste in puppies is to Fergie, then I have no sympathy for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any time you agree to take one of those quizes etc , Facebook pops up a GIANT box in your face basically saying that if you agree to take that quiz then you give all rights to your information and your first bord child to the developers of that application.If the user is too stupid to read a giant disclaimer right in their face and decide it is not worth that risk to find out how much alike their taste in puppies is to Fergie , then I have no sympathy for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any time you agree to take one of those quizes etc, Facebook pops up a GIANT box in your face basically saying that if you agree to take that quiz then you give all rights to your information and your first bord child to the developers of that application.If the user is too stupid to read a giant disclaimer right in their face and decide it is not worth that risk to find out how much alike their taste in puppies is to Fergie, then I have no sympathy for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730987</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731377</id>
	<title>Gah!</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1247852100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gee a company operating outside of Canada does not adhere to Canadian Law? Impossible!</p><p>Seriously though this is just the Privacy Commissioner's Officer playing the political game. Target some company with "Gee Whiz" factor and make a stink. This is all to get PR and good vibes. See look, we do stuff, aren't you happy? Now back to work!</p><p>Granted Facebook does business in Canada, but it isn't like they are going to lose any business, nor can they be stopped from operating. If anything this warning may scare off a few Canadian customers, but in the large scheme of things really a drop in the bucket for Facebook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee a company operating outside of Canada does not adhere to Canadian Law ?
Impossible ! Seriously though this is just the Privacy Commissioner 's Officer playing the political game .
Target some company with " Gee Whiz " factor and make a stink .
This is all to get PR and good vibes .
See look , we do stuff , are n't you happy ?
Now back to work ! Granted Facebook does business in Canada , but it is n't like they are going to lose any business , nor can they be stopped from operating .
If anything this warning may scare off a few Canadian customers , but in the large scheme of things really a drop in the bucket for Facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee a company operating outside of Canada does not adhere to Canadian Law?
Impossible!Seriously though this is just the Privacy Commissioner's Officer playing the political game.
Target some company with "Gee Whiz" factor and make a stink.
This is all to get PR and good vibes.
See look, we do stuff, aren't you happy?
Now back to work!Granted Facebook does business in Canada, but it isn't like they are going to lose any business, nor can they be stopped from operating.
If anything this warning may scare off a few Canadian customers, but in the large scheme of things really a drop in the bucket for Facebook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732083</id>
	<title>The problem with Facebook.</title>
	<author>Sukhbir</author>
	<datestamp>1247855040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> My only problem with Facebook is that why they can't allow <b> a complete </b> account removal. They just disable the accounts. With a simple log in, the account is re - enabled. </p><p> I joined Facebook on the insistence of my friends. However, I no longer feel it useful, they are too many cluttered apps (which I can't tolerate) and other stuff which make it simply unusable. I tried to delete my account, it doesn't work. I emailed Facebook support, they said you have to delete <i> every post, every friend, every link you created </i> <b> manually. </b> I have 250 friends. How am I supposed to manually delete all data?  </p><p>This sucks. Why are they so insistent with disabling accounts and not allowing users to completely delete them? I feel this is a clear violation of my privacy. I don't like something, it should be deleted. At least users should have this much right. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My only problem with Facebook is that why they ca n't allow a complete account removal .
They just disable the accounts .
With a simple log in , the account is re - enabled .
I joined Facebook on the insistence of my friends .
However , I no longer feel it useful , they are too many cluttered apps ( which I ca n't tolerate ) and other stuff which make it simply unusable .
I tried to delete my account , it does n't work .
I emailed Facebook support , they said you have to delete every post , every friend , every link you created manually .
I have 250 friends .
How am I supposed to manually delete all data ?
This sucks .
Why are they so insistent with disabling accounts and not allowing users to completely delete them ?
I feel this is a clear violation of my privacy .
I do n't like something , it should be deleted .
At least users should have this much right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> My only problem with Facebook is that why they can't allow  a complete  account removal.
They just disable the accounts.
With a simple log in, the account is re - enabled.
I joined Facebook on the insistence of my friends.
However, I no longer feel it useful, they are too many cluttered apps (which I can't tolerate) and other stuff which make it simply unusable.
I tried to delete my account, it doesn't work.
I emailed Facebook support, they said you have to delete  every post, every friend, every link you created   manually.
I have 250 friends.
How am I supposed to manually delete all data?
This sucks.
Why are they so insistent with disabling accounts and not allowing users to completely delete them?
I feel this is a clear violation of my privacy.
I don't like something, it should be deleted.
At least users should have this much right. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731637</id>
	<title>Eventually someone will get screwed over</title>
	<author>fluffernutter</author>
	<datestamp>1247853180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We've already seen amusing stories about US/Canadian citizens by chance finding their faces plastered all over stores in Czechoslovakia it's only a matter of time before someone gets seriously screwed over by lack of controls on privacy.  Everyone on slashdot knows how to properly use or not use Facebook but everyone on slashdot is not most people on Facebook.  I think the average Facebook user has no idea how much risk they could put themselves under.<br> <br>
Furthermore, if we are going to go forward with the cloud mentality I think the Canadian government is asking some important questions!  How do we have a central cloud that acts as a repository of data but yet not sacrifice each and every individual's right to maintain absolute control over their own data?  I am Canadian and for the record I tend to not like a lot of things about the running of the Canadian government but sorry folks I think they got this one right.<br> <br>
I set up my own email server in my house to avoid these issues and I will not be comfortable putting any of my personal life on remote servers until these things are hashed out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've already seen amusing stories about US/Canadian citizens by chance finding their faces plastered all over stores in Czechoslovakia it 's only a matter of time before someone gets seriously screwed over by lack of controls on privacy .
Everyone on slashdot knows how to properly use or not use Facebook but everyone on slashdot is not most people on Facebook .
I think the average Facebook user has no idea how much risk they could put themselves under .
Furthermore , if we are going to go forward with the cloud mentality I think the Canadian government is asking some important questions !
How do we have a central cloud that acts as a repository of data but yet not sacrifice each and every individual 's right to maintain absolute control over their own data ?
I am Canadian and for the record I tend to not like a lot of things about the running of the Canadian government but sorry folks I think they got this one right .
I set up my own email server in my house to avoid these issues and I will not be comfortable putting any of my personal life on remote servers until these things are hashed out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've already seen amusing stories about US/Canadian citizens by chance finding their faces plastered all over stores in Czechoslovakia it's only a matter of time before someone gets seriously screwed over by lack of controls on privacy.
Everyone on slashdot knows how to properly use or not use Facebook but everyone on slashdot is not most people on Facebook.
I think the average Facebook user has no idea how much risk they could put themselves under.
Furthermore, if we are going to go forward with the cloud mentality I think the Canadian government is asking some important questions!
How do we have a central cloud that acts as a repository of data but yet not sacrifice each and every individual's right to maintain absolute control over their own data?
I am Canadian and for the record I tend to not like a lot of things about the running of the Canadian government but sorry folks I think they got this one right.
I set up my own email server in my house to avoid these issues and I will not be comfortable putting any of my personal life on remote servers until these things are hashed out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28733521</id>
	<title>It's online though, not exclusive to facebook</title>
	<author>phorm</author>
	<datestamp>1247861640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but similarly somebody could post up a picture of you on any number of other websites. While the tagging system might not be the same, most crawlers would probably pick it up well enough from a hyperlink with your name in it, or whatnot.</p><p>Now technically I believe that you can request the site to take down those images as needed, but could not the same process be used for facebook? But yeah, I avoid doing dumb things on camera more or less as a general rule...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but similarly somebody could post up a picture of you on any number of other websites .
While the tagging system might not be the same , most crawlers would probably pick it up well enough from a hyperlink with your name in it , or whatnot.Now technically I believe that you can request the site to take down those images as needed , but could not the same process be used for facebook ?
But yeah , I avoid doing dumb things on camera more or less as a general rule.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but similarly somebody could post up a picture of you on any number of other websites.
While the tagging system might not be the same, most crawlers would probably pick it up well enough from a hyperlink with your name in it, or whatnot.Now technically I believe that you can request the site to take down those images as needed, but could not the same process be used for facebook?
But yeah, I avoid doing dumb things on camera more or less as a general rule...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731689</id>
	<title>Who's holding a gun to their head and saying share</title>
	<author>dodden</author>
	<datestamp>1247853360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suppose they could go use one of the other jacked up sites out there like myface or spacebook</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose they could go use one of the other jacked up sites out there like myface or spacebook</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose they could go use one of the other jacked up sites out there like myface or spacebook</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901</id>
	<title>Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>A. B3ttik</author>
	<datestamp>1247849880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone actually expect privacy from these networking sites anymore?
<br> <br>

Besides, who puts something on Facebook that they \_want\_ to keep \_private\_?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone actually expect privacy from these networking sites anymore ?
Besides , who puts something on Facebook that they \ _want \ _ to keep \ _private \ _ ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone actually expect privacy from these networking sites anymore?
Besides, who puts something on Facebook that they \_want\_ to keep \_private\_?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730983</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>kent\_eh</author>
	<datestamp>1247850300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone actually expect privacy from these networking sites anymore?</p></div><p>Most Facebook (or any other popular social networking site) don't know (or don't care) any better. Even if someone sat them down and explained it to them <br> <br>
They only start caring when they mature a bit. <br>
By which time, it's way to late to do anything about the pictures of them doing naked bong hits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone actually expect privacy from these networking sites anymore ? Most Facebook ( or any other popular social networking site ) do n't know ( or do n't care ) any better .
Even if someone sat them down and explained it to them They only start caring when they mature a bit .
By which time , it 's way to late to do anything about the pictures of them doing naked bong hits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone actually expect privacy from these networking sites anymore?Most Facebook (or any other popular social networking site) don't know (or don't care) any better.
Even if someone sat them down and explained it to them  
They only start caring when they mature a bit.
By which time, it's way to late to do anything about the pictures of them doing naked bong hits.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731497</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is pretty simple</title>
	<author>garcia</author>
	<datestamp>1247852640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The answer is pretty simple DO NOT RUN ANY APPS!!!</i></p><p>Yeah, the answer to the drug problem is simple: don't buy any drugs!!! Unfortunately just because someone is accepting payment in return for illegal drugs does not mean it's legal. Thus, just because Canadian Facebook users have the option not to run applications doesn't mean that they don't/won't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The answer is pretty simple DO NOT RUN ANY APPS ! !
! Yeah , the answer to the drug problem is simple : do n't buy any drugs ! ! !
Unfortunately just because someone is accepting payment in return for illegal drugs does not mean it 's legal .
Thus , just because Canadian Facebook users have the option not to run applications does n't mean that they do n't/wo n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The answer is pretty simple DO NOT RUN ANY APPS!!
!Yeah, the answer to the drug problem is simple: don't buy any drugs!!!
Unfortunately just because someone is accepting payment in return for illegal drugs does not mean it's legal.
Thus, just because Canadian Facebook users have the option not to run applications doesn't mean that they don't/won't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730997</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>peragrin</author>
	<datestamp>1247850360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately idiots out number intelligent people. How many cases have you heard of where a kid postssomething stupid they did oy tohave their parents find out about it.</p><p>I don't face a facebook account(I am not narsisstic enough) yet I hear about that crap 2-3times a month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately idiots out number intelligent people .
How many cases have you heard of where a kid postssomething stupid they did oy tohave their parents find out about it.I do n't face a facebook account ( I am not narsisstic enough ) yet I hear about that crap 2-3times a month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately idiots out number intelligent people.
How many cases have you heard of where a kid postssomething stupid they did oy tohave their parents find out about it.I don't face a facebook account(I am not narsisstic enough) yet I hear about that crap 2-3times a month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28752865</id>
	<title>Jurisdiction</title>
	<author>harryjohnston</author>
	<datestamp>1248024180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone know why Canada feels it has jurisdiction over Facebook?</p><p>Or is this another case of <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/17/1550212/Belgium-Tries-to-Fine-Yahoo-for-Protecting-US-User-Privacy" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">this</a> [slashdot.org]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone know why Canada feels it has jurisdiction over Facebook ? Or is this another case of this [ slashdot.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone know why Canada feels it has jurisdiction over Facebook?Or is this another case of this [slashdot.org]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28734199</id>
	<title>Re:The "user beware" argument is faulty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247821440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So it's always someone else's fault, never mine? Time to step up and take responsibility for our own actions. What will happen if we continue down this path of always trying to place the blame on someone else?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it 's always someone else 's fault , never mine ?
Time to step up and take responsibility for our own actions .
What will happen if we continue down this path of always trying to place the blame on someone else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it's always someone else's fault, never mine?
Time to step up and take responsibility for our own actions.
What will happen if we continue down this path of always trying to place the blame on someone else?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731613</id>
	<title>Re:They prompt you</title>
	<author>Beardo the Bearded</author>
	<datestamp>1247853000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tech the tech teched.</p><p>Tech the teching tech?</p><p>[YES PLAY GAME] (no)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tech the tech teched.Tech the teching tech ?
[ YES PLAY GAME ] ( no )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tech the tech teched.Tech the teching tech?
[YES PLAY GAME] (no)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731889</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>Trailrunner7</author>
	<datestamp>1247854260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>wait wait wait. They have computers in Canada?</htmltext>
<tokenext>wait wait wait .
They have computers in Canada ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wait wait wait.
They have computers in Canada?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731449</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is pretty simple</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1247852400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was my old policy, however check <a href="http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/privacy/?view=platform&amp;tab=other" title="facebook.com">this</a> [facebook.com] out it does allow much greater control over apps than previously available. At a minimum i have to give the app maker "my name, networks, and list of friends", which is much better than the old choice of everything/nothing, and IIRC the defaults are fairly tight too mine only gave away basic info ("Your basic info consists of your birthday, gender, hometown, political views and when you last updated your profile.") &amp; my profile pic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was my old policy , however check this [ facebook.com ] out it does allow much greater control over apps than previously available .
At a minimum i have to give the app maker " my name , networks , and list of friends " , which is much better than the old choice of everything/nothing , and IIRC the defaults are fairly tight too mine only gave away basic info ( " Your basic info consists of your birthday , gender , hometown , political views and when you last updated your profile .
" ) &amp; my profile pic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was my old policy, however check this [facebook.com] out it does allow much greater control over apps than previously available.
At a minimum i have to give the app maker "my name, networks, and list of friends", which is much better than the old choice of everything/nothing, and IIRC the defaults are fairly tight too mine only gave away basic info ("Your basic info consists of your birthday, gender, hometown, political views and when you last updated your profile.
") &amp; my profile pic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732035</id>
	<title>The "user beware" argument is faulty</title>
	<author>sherriw</author>
	<datestamp>1247854800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While many comments here are along the lines of... well then just don't use any apps. Or... just let the people who don't know any better, suffer the consequences of their ignorance. Etc.  This is a faulty argument. If we always take the stance that no one should be protected from exploitation because of their ignorance then we will all end up in that boat.</p><p>Maybe you're so smart, you know better than to use Facebook at all or maybe just keep your personal info off it. But many people don't know this and Facebook actively encourages you to fill in and post as much info as possible.</p><p>Ok, you're too smart for Facebook. But are you overweight? Do you read the ingredients and nutrition info of everything you eat? Maybe we should allow restaurants and food companies to <i>fill</i> their products with trans-fats and all kinds of harmful but tasty chemical garbage, or exorbitant calories because well, if you're too stupid to read the ingredients or research the process to make the food- you deserve what you get.</p><p>Ok, maybe you are a conscientious eater and are careful of what you put in your body. You're too smart here. But do you use a cell phone? Maybe we should let cell phone makers create devices that emit tons of radiation and make all the cellphone users who are too stupid to research how much radiation their particular model of phone emits suffer the consequences of their stupidity.</p><p>Do you know the safety rating of your car?<br>Do you know the actual interest rates that payday lenders and/or your credit cards are charging you?</p><p>Etc, etc etc.</p><p>None of us are totally free of ignorance in every single area of our lives. User beware will bite all of us in the ass eventually. It needs to be a two way street. Buyers need to be aware and sellers need to be responsible for what they produce and how they treat their customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While many comments here are along the lines of... well then just do n't use any apps .
Or... just let the people who do n't know any better , suffer the consequences of their ignorance .
Etc. This is a faulty argument .
If we always take the stance that no one should be protected from exploitation because of their ignorance then we will all end up in that boat.Maybe you 're so smart , you know better than to use Facebook at all or maybe just keep your personal info off it .
But many people do n't know this and Facebook actively encourages you to fill in and post as much info as possible.Ok , you 're too smart for Facebook .
But are you overweight ?
Do you read the ingredients and nutrition info of everything you eat ?
Maybe we should allow restaurants and food companies to fill their products with trans-fats and all kinds of harmful but tasty chemical garbage , or exorbitant calories because well , if you 're too stupid to read the ingredients or research the process to make the food- you deserve what you get.Ok , maybe you are a conscientious eater and are careful of what you put in your body .
You 're too smart here .
But do you use a cell phone ?
Maybe we should let cell phone makers create devices that emit tons of radiation and make all the cellphone users who are too stupid to research how much radiation their particular model of phone emits suffer the consequences of their stupidity.Do you know the safety rating of your car ? Do you know the actual interest rates that payday lenders and/or your credit cards are charging you ? Etc , etc etc.None of us are totally free of ignorance in every single area of our lives .
User beware will bite all of us in the ass eventually .
It needs to be a two way street .
Buyers need to be aware and sellers need to be responsible for what they produce and how they treat their customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While many comments here are along the lines of... well then just don't use any apps.
Or... just let the people who don't know any better, suffer the consequences of their ignorance.
Etc.  This is a faulty argument.
If we always take the stance that no one should be protected from exploitation because of their ignorance then we will all end up in that boat.Maybe you're so smart, you know better than to use Facebook at all or maybe just keep your personal info off it.
But many people don't know this and Facebook actively encourages you to fill in and post as much info as possible.Ok, you're too smart for Facebook.
But are you overweight?
Do you read the ingredients and nutrition info of everything you eat?
Maybe we should allow restaurants and food companies to fill their products with trans-fats and all kinds of harmful but tasty chemical garbage, or exorbitant calories because well, if you're too stupid to read the ingredients or research the process to make the food- you deserve what you get.Ok, maybe you are a conscientious eater and are careful of what you put in your body.
You're too smart here.
But do you use a cell phone?
Maybe we should let cell phone makers create devices that emit tons of radiation and make all the cellphone users who are too stupid to research how much radiation their particular model of phone emits suffer the consequences of their stupidity.Do you know the safety rating of your car?Do you know the actual interest rates that payday lenders and/or your credit cards are charging you?Etc, etc etc.None of us are totally free of ignorance in every single area of our lives.
User beware will bite all of us in the ass eventually.
It needs to be a two way street.
Buyers need to be aware and sellers need to be responsible for what they produce and how they treat their customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28752707</id>
	<title>Re:They prompt you</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1248022260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait, how is making it illegal to use personal data as a means of payment for a service "civilized"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , how is making it illegal to use personal data as a means of payment for a service " civilized " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, how is making it illegal to use personal data as a means of payment for a service "civilized"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732901</id>
	<title>Re:The answer is pretty simple</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1247858400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>DO NOT RUN ANY APPS!!! Sorry for shouting, but I have been saying this to people for years now (since the first time i read the terms for FaceBook apps).

I am not knocking FB as a tool in and of itself, in fact I am very grateful to them for letting my daughter find me after 16 years of seperation (true story - she searched my name and sent me a message) but come on, they state clearly that if you want to plant a garden (or whatever) the developer gets to see all of your  info. just Don't Do It.

thanks for the rant-space.</p></div><p>And you also need to not let any friends who you allow to see your page to run any apps.  Another possibility is to not put any information at all on FB that you want to keep private.  If a conversation turns toward something private, switch to email, IM, or, you know, spoken words.

FB isn't a necessity for fully maintaining anyone's modern social life, despite the frequent claims I see here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>DO NOT RUN ANY APPS ! ! !
Sorry for shouting , but I have been saying this to people for years now ( since the first time i read the terms for FaceBook apps ) .
I am not knocking FB as a tool in and of itself , in fact I am very grateful to them for letting my daughter find me after 16 years of seperation ( true story - she searched my name and sent me a message ) but come on , they state clearly that if you want to plant a garden ( or whatever ) the developer gets to see all of your info .
just Do n't Do It .
thanks for the rant-space.And you also need to not let any friends who you allow to see your page to run any apps .
Another possibility is to not put any information at all on FB that you want to keep private .
If a conversation turns toward something private , switch to email , IM , or , you know , spoken words .
FB is n't a necessity for fully maintaining anyone 's modern social life , despite the frequent claims I see here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DO NOT RUN ANY APPS!!!
Sorry for shouting, but I have been saying this to people for years now (since the first time i read the terms for FaceBook apps).
I am not knocking FB as a tool in and of itself, in fact I am very grateful to them for letting my daughter find me after 16 years of seperation (true story - she searched my name and sent me a message) but come on, they state clearly that if you want to plant a garden (or whatever) the developer gets to see all of your  info.
just Don't Do It.
thanks for the rant-space.And you also need to not let any friends who you allow to see your page to run any apps.
Another possibility is to not put any information at all on FB that you want to keep private.
If a conversation turns toward something private, switch to email, IM, or, you know, spoken words.
FB isn't a necessity for fully maintaining anyone's modern social life, despite the frequent claims I see here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731313</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>WebCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1247851800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just because there's users on FB from all around the world, it doesn't mean that FB has to abide by all countries' laws.  If that were the case, the Internet would be a hobbled and useless mess.</p><p>MadCow.</p></div><p>Actually it doesn't matter where servers are located--what matters is how business is conducted in the country in question.  Also, the Internet is hobbled and a mess, though it is still rather useful.</p><p>There is already historical precedent.  Totalitarian governments, notably those of China and Cuba, thoroughly monitor Internet traffic and routinely block sites that conflict with their propaganda.  The Pirate Bay was hosted in Sweden, but it is banned in China and several EU countries have had legal battles over allowing their citizens to visit the site.  Then there are legal sites that restrict access--I cannot use Pandora from home (though at my office of my former employer I could, because the corporate proxy was in the US).  People in my home country have been convicted on child pornography charges based upon underground sites hosted in another continent.  By Quebec law, technically a company doing "significant business" in that province MUST provide French language pages--hosting outside the province does not prevent the "language police" from taking action if they wanted to.</p><p>Nobody, not even Facebook, can operate above the law with impunity using the excuse that their computers are not in the country.  They conduct business here (notably, a number of apps ARE hosted physically in Canada, so it isn't just that end users are here--they are illegally sharing private information with Canadian facebook app hosts), they have to follow our rules.</p><p>Who cares?  Well I care--whether I agree with specific laws I want to know that foreign operations are held to the same standards that we must meet ourselves.  And, as is apparent in the news, the Canadian government cares a great deal too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because there 's users on FB from all around the world , it does n't mean that FB has to abide by all countries ' laws .
If that were the case , the Internet would be a hobbled and useless mess.MadCow.Actually it does n't matter where servers are located--what matters is how business is conducted in the country in question .
Also , the Internet is hobbled and a mess , though it is still rather useful.There is already historical precedent .
Totalitarian governments , notably those of China and Cuba , thoroughly monitor Internet traffic and routinely block sites that conflict with their propaganda .
The Pirate Bay was hosted in Sweden , but it is banned in China and several EU countries have had legal battles over allowing their citizens to visit the site .
Then there are legal sites that restrict access--I can not use Pandora from home ( though at my office of my former employer I could , because the corporate proxy was in the US ) .
People in my home country have been convicted on child pornography charges based upon underground sites hosted in another continent .
By Quebec law , technically a company doing " significant business " in that province MUST provide French language pages--hosting outside the province does not prevent the " language police " from taking action if they wanted to.Nobody , not even Facebook , can operate above the law with impunity using the excuse that their computers are not in the country .
They conduct business here ( notably , a number of apps ARE hosted physically in Canada , so it is n't just that end users are here--they are illegally sharing private information with Canadian facebook app hosts ) , they have to follow our rules.Who cares ?
Well I care--whether I agree with specific laws I want to know that foreign operations are held to the same standards that we must meet ourselves .
And , as is apparent in the news , the Canadian government cares a great deal too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because there's users on FB from all around the world, it doesn't mean that FB has to abide by all countries' laws.
If that were the case, the Internet would be a hobbled and useless mess.MadCow.Actually it doesn't matter where servers are located--what matters is how business is conducted in the country in question.
Also, the Internet is hobbled and a mess, though it is still rather useful.There is already historical precedent.
Totalitarian governments, notably those of China and Cuba, thoroughly monitor Internet traffic and routinely block sites that conflict with their propaganda.
The Pirate Bay was hosted in Sweden, but it is banned in China and several EU countries have had legal battles over allowing their citizens to visit the site.
Then there are legal sites that restrict access--I cannot use Pandora from home (though at my office of my former employer I could, because the corporate proxy was in the US).
People in my home country have been convicted on child pornography charges based upon underground sites hosted in another continent.
By Quebec law, technically a company doing "significant business" in that province MUST provide French language pages--hosting outside the province does not prevent the "language police" from taking action if they wanted to.Nobody, not even Facebook, can operate above the law with impunity using the excuse that their computers are not in the country.
They conduct business here (notably, a number of apps ARE hosted physically in Canada, so it isn't just that end users are here--they are illegally sharing private information with Canadian facebook app hosts), they have to follow our rules.Who cares?
Well I care--whether I agree with specific laws I want to know that foreign operations are held to the same standards that we must meet ourselves.
And, as is apparent in the news, the Canadian government cares a great deal too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731079</id>
	<title>Trouble for Me?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247850720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was forced to sign up for Facebook in university at the point of alcoholic intoxication. I have since deactivated my Facebook account but I fear that they may be keeping hold of my fake name and address thus linking me to all of my other cybercrimes. With any luck, and since I am Canadian, this legal movement will have Facebook remove that information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was forced to sign up for Facebook in university at the point of alcoholic intoxication .
I have since deactivated my Facebook account but I fear that they may be keeping hold of my fake name and address thus linking me to all of my other cybercrimes .
With any luck , and since I am Canadian , this legal movement will have Facebook remove that information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was forced to sign up for Facebook in university at the point of alcoholic intoxication.
I have since deactivated my Facebook account but I fear that they may be keeping hold of my fake name and address thus linking me to all of my other cybercrimes.
With any luck, and since I am Canadian, this legal movement will have Facebook remove that information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732773</id>
	<title>Jurisdiction?</title>
	<author>kramerd</author>
	<datestamp>1247857920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quick, relevant point: Since when does Canada have jurisdiction over the internet?</p><p>Does Canadian law actually apply to facebook? If not, then facebook doesn't violate Canadian privacy law, its just not congruent with it.</p><p>Secondarily, even if facebook did violate Canadian privacy law, users of the site waive that right to privacy by signing up with the user agreement. [What's that random troll? You didnt actually read the user agreement? No one cares. Facebook isnt responsible for you not reading something that you agreed to, and it would be preposterous of facebook to assume that when you said you read and agree to terms and conditions that you didnt read and agree to terms and conditions.]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick , relevant point : Since when does Canada have jurisdiction over the internet ? Does Canadian law actually apply to facebook ?
If not , then facebook does n't violate Canadian privacy law , its just not congruent with it.Secondarily , even if facebook did violate Canadian privacy law , users of the site waive that right to privacy by signing up with the user agreement .
[ What 's that random troll ?
You didnt actually read the user agreement ?
No one cares .
Facebook isnt responsible for you not reading something that you agreed to , and it would be preposterous of facebook to assume that when you said you read and agree to terms and conditions that you didnt read and agree to terms and conditions .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick, relevant point: Since when does Canada have jurisdiction over the internet?Does Canadian law actually apply to facebook?
If not, then facebook doesn't violate Canadian privacy law, its just not congruent with it.Secondarily, even if facebook did violate Canadian privacy law, users of the site waive that right to privacy by signing up with the user agreement.
[What's that random troll?
You didnt actually read the user agreement?
No one cares.
Facebook isnt responsible for you not reading something that you agreed to, and it would be preposterous of facebook to assume that when you said you read and agree to terms and conditions that you didnt read and agree to terms and conditions.
]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731701</id>
	<title>The boss of MI6</title>
	<author>wjh31</author>
	<datestamp>1247853420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"who puts something on Facebook that they \_want\_ to keep \_private\_?"
<br> <br>
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8134807.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8134807.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]
<br> <br>
The (wife of the) boss of britains MI6 apparently.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" who puts something on Facebook that they \ _want \ _ to keep \ _private \ _ ?
" http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8134807.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] The ( wife of the ) boss of britains MI6 apparently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"who puts something on Facebook that they \_want\_ to keep \_private\_?
"
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8134807.stm [bbc.co.uk]
 
The (wife of the) boss of britains MI6 apparently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731481</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>fluffernutter</author>
	<datestamp>1247852580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uhm.. If memory serves me correctly, US anti-gambling laws were applied to websites with their servers not even on this continent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm.. If memory serves me correctly , US anti-gambling laws were applied to websites with their servers not even on this continent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm.. If memory serves me correctly, US anti-gambling laws were applied to websites with their servers not even on this continent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731027</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731261</id>
	<title>Priorities</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1247851500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How robust is Canada's analog to the 4th amendment? Does it even have one?..</p><p>A lot of the privacy debate in the West is completely ass backwards to the point of being Orwellian. Britain is, right now, the best example of that for the entire West. They have data retention mandates that cover all communications, can force you to divulge encryption keys, no written constitution (and thus no lasting written constitutional limitations like the 4th amendment) and yet they fret about what a fucking supermarket or Facebook might do to your privacy.</p><p>It's a total farce. The only people who can enable the destruction of your life or directly cause it are the government. Even identity theft is an issue created by the law because the government won't make lenders and merchants responsible for ascertaining the identity of the buyer first. So really, when you scratch beneath the surface, on basically all privacy issues that affect your life, liberty and property, the government is at least an active conspirator if not the culprit. Sometimes that's through negligence like with identity theft, but others it's willful like watering down restrictions on the issuing of warrants and wiretaps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How robust is Canada 's analog to the 4th amendment ?
Does it even have one ? ..A lot of the privacy debate in the West is completely ass backwards to the point of being Orwellian .
Britain is , right now , the best example of that for the entire West .
They have data retention mandates that cover all communications , can force you to divulge encryption keys , no written constitution ( and thus no lasting written constitutional limitations like the 4th amendment ) and yet they fret about what a fucking supermarket or Facebook might do to your privacy.It 's a total farce .
The only people who can enable the destruction of your life or directly cause it are the government .
Even identity theft is an issue created by the law because the government wo n't make lenders and merchants responsible for ascertaining the identity of the buyer first .
So really , when you scratch beneath the surface , on basically all privacy issues that affect your life , liberty and property , the government is at least an active conspirator if not the culprit .
Sometimes that 's through negligence like with identity theft , but others it 's willful like watering down restrictions on the issuing of warrants and wiretaps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How robust is Canada's analog to the 4th amendment?
Does it even have one?..A lot of the privacy debate in the West is completely ass backwards to the point of being Orwellian.
Britain is, right now, the best example of that for the entire West.
They have data retention mandates that cover all communications, can force you to divulge encryption keys, no written constitution (and thus no lasting written constitutional limitations like the 4th amendment) and yet they fret about what a fucking supermarket or Facebook might do to your privacy.It's a total farce.
The only people who can enable the destruction of your life or directly cause it are the government.
Even identity theft is an issue created by the law because the government won't make lenders and merchants responsible for ascertaining the identity of the buyer first.
So really, when you scratch beneath the surface, on basically all privacy issues that affect your life, liberty and property, the government is at least an active conspirator if not the culprit.
Sometimes that's through negligence like with identity theft, but others it's willful like watering down restrictions on the issuing of warrants and wiretaps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730995</id>
	<title>So Freaking What</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247850360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the servers are not in Canada or in the CA TLD, why should anyone care?  We don't accomodate Iran and China, Canada should be no different.  If the Canadian government wishes they can try and block certain offending sites, but they will be no better at it than Iran and China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the servers are not in Canada or in the CA TLD , why should anyone care ?
We do n't accomodate Iran and China , Canada should be no different .
If the Canadian government wishes they can try and block certain offending sites , but they will be no better at it than Iran and China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the servers are not in Canada or in the CA TLD, why should anyone care?
We don't accomodate Iran and China, Canada should be no different.
If the Canadian government wishes they can try and block certain offending sites, but they will be no better at it than Iran and China.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731443</id>
	<title>Ignorance should not be an excuse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247852400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facebook (or any other social networking site for that matter) ought to have, in addition to their myriad of legal disclaimers and consent forms, some form of intelligence waiver requirement before allowing user to create accounts. Something akin to those signs you see at amusement parks -- "You must be this high to ride". Like "U must be dis smart to use Facebuk". Otherwise, go back to playing spider solitaire or bejeweled, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook ( or any other social networking site for that matter ) ought to have , in addition to their myriad of legal disclaimers and consent forms , some form of intelligence waiver requirement before allowing user to create accounts .
Something akin to those signs you see at amusement parks -- " You must be this high to ride " .
Like " U must be dis smart to use Facebuk " .
Otherwise , go back to playing spider solitaire or bejeweled , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook (or any other social networking site for that matter) ought to have, in addition to their myriad of legal disclaimers and consent forms, some form of intelligence waiver requirement before allowing user to create accounts.
Something akin to those signs you see at amusement parks -- "You must be this high to ride".
Like "U must be dis smart to use Facebuk".
Otherwise, go back to playing spider solitaire or bejeweled, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731471</id>
	<title>Re:Priorities</title>
	<author>abigor</author>
	<datestamp>1247852460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As another poster mentioned, the Canadian equivalent of the 4th Amendment is Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.</p><p>More to the point, Canada has a very powerful Privacy Act ("An Act to extend the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of individuals and that provide individuals with a right of access to personal information about themselves") that limits the government's ability to collect and retain private information, and a Privacy Commissioner to enforce it. I don't think there's anything comparable in the US, as Canada's privacy laws are probably the toughest in the western world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As another poster mentioned , the Canadian equivalent of the 4th Amendment is Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.More to the point , Canada has a very powerful Privacy Act ( " An Act to extend the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of individuals and that provide individuals with a right of access to personal information about themselves " ) that limits the government 's ability to collect and retain private information , and a Privacy Commissioner to enforce it .
I do n't think there 's anything comparable in the US , as Canada 's privacy laws are probably the toughest in the western world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As another poster mentioned, the Canadian equivalent of the 4th Amendment is Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.More to the point, Canada has a very powerful Privacy Act ("An Act to extend the present laws of Canada that protect the privacy of individuals and that provide individuals with a right of access to personal information about themselves") that limits the government's ability to collect and retain private information, and a Privacy Commissioner to enforce it.
I don't think there's anything comparable in the US, as Canada's privacy laws are probably the toughest in the western world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732857</id>
	<title>I'm not in the mood...</title>
	<author>2obvious4u</author>
	<datestamp>1247858280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fuck Canada and their flappy heads.  Its just like that South Park episode where the Canadian government tried to strike... who needs them anyway, lets just kick them off the internets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck Canada and their flappy heads .
Its just like that South Park episode where the Canadian government tried to strike... who needs them anyway , lets just kick them off the internets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck Canada and their flappy heads.
Its just like that South Park episode where the Canadian government tried to strike... who needs them anyway, lets just kick them off the internets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731457</id>
	<title>Adding an Application/Friend is the same</title>
	<author>KCWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1247852400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To me adding an application is the same as adding a friend.  A friend can be just as destructive with the information, and alot of people will add anyone who asks to be a friend.  At least the applications are bound by privacy rules.

As for the not deleting all the data when you delete your account to me is something that needs to be cleaned up.  If you say delete my account you should cease to exist to them, the clean up process should take care and be able to handle broken links.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To me adding an application is the same as adding a friend .
A friend can be just as destructive with the information , and alot of people will add anyone who asks to be a friend .
At least the applications are bound by privacy rules .
As for the not deleting all the data when you delete your account to me is something that needs to be cleaned up .
If you say delete my account you should cease to exist to them , the clean up process should take care and be able to handle broken links .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me adding an application is the same as adding a friend.
A friend can be just as destructive with the information, and alot of people will add anyone who asks to be a friend.
At least the applications are bound by privacy rules.
As for the not deleting all the data when you delete your account to me is something that needs to be cleaned up.
If you say delete my account you should cease to exist to them, the clean up process should take care and be able to handle broken links.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28736053</id>
	<title>The Problem...</title>
	<author>PhotoGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1247831700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The biggest problem I see with Facebook is the stupid, silly apps that get *full* access to your data.  I create a dancing Christmas tree that everybody sends to their friends, or similar banality, and I can scam tons of personal data, that I really don't need to show that dancing Christmas tree.</p><p>The Canadian report recommends that these third party apps only request the data they need to perform their function, that the app let's the user know what data is using, and gets the user's approval.  If that Dancing Christmas tree is asking for my phone number, I don't think that's appropriate, and I should be able to reject it, and the app wouldn't be popular.</p><p>I believe Facebook used to have a better granularity in asking what perms an app could have (although most apps asked for everything anyway).  If app creators would only ask for what is relevant to their app, and users were aware of it (and refused to give away details unnecessarily), things would be much cleaner.</p><p>I do fault facebook for removing (or hiding?) this granularity, and simply making a "grant permission" button instead of showing all that a given vendor was getting access to.</p><p>Creating a mindless but popular app really the easiest way to get a ton of demographic data for nothing.  It's shameful that Facebook allowed this, perhaps even encouraged it; now they're being called on it.</p><p>Proud to be Canadian.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest problem I see with Facebook is the stupid , silly apps that get * full * access to your data .
I create a dancing Christmas tree that everybody sends to their friends , or similar banality , and I can scam tons of personal data , that I really do n't need to show that dancing Christmas tree.The Canadian report recommends that these third party apps only request the data they need to perform their function , that the app let 's the user know what data is using , and gets the user 's approval .
If that Dancing Christmas tree is asking for my phone number , I do n't think that 's appropriate , and I should be able to reject it , and the app would n't be popular.I believe Facebook used to have a better granularity in asking what perms an app could have ( although most apps asked for everything anyway ) .
If app creators would only ask for what is relevant to their app , and users were aware of it ( and refused to give away details unnecessarily ) , things would be much cleaner.I do fault facebook for removing ( or hiding ?
) this granularity , and simply making a " grant permission " button instead of showing all that a given vendor was getting access to.Creating a mindless but popular app really the easiest way to get a ton of demographic data for nothing .
It 's shameful that Facebook allowed this , perhaps even encouraged it ; now they 're being called on it.Proud to be Canadian .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest problem I see with Facebook is the stupid, silly apps that get *full* access to your data.
I create a dancing Christmas tree that everybody sends to their friends, or similar banality, and I can scam tons of personal data, that I really don't need to show that dancing Christmas tree.The Canadian report recommends that these third party apps only request the data they need to perform their function, that the app let's the user know what data is using, and gets the user's approval.
If that Dancing Christmas tree is asking for my phone number, I don't think that's appropriate, and I should be able to reject it, and the app wouldn't be popular.I believe Facebook used to have a better granularity in asking what perms an app could have (although most apps asked for everything anyway).
If app creators would only ask for what is relevant to their app, and users were aware of it (and refused to give away details unnecessarily), things would be much cleaner.I do fault facebook for removing (or hiding?
) this granularity, and simply making a "grant permission" button instead of showing all that a given vendor was getting access to.Creating a mindless but popular app really the easiest way to get a ton of demographic data for nothing.
It's shameful that Facebook allowed this, perhaps even encouraged it; now they're being called on it.Proud to be Canadian.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732825</id>
	<title>Re:They prompt you</title>
	<author>SydShamino</author>
	<datestamp>1247858160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your American libertarian view of the law sees this as a business transaction, where the user can either use the product (and accept the terms of total data disclosure) or not use it.</p><p>Other countries with more civilized privacy laws prevent companies from demanding unnecessary personal data (i.e. anything not needed for the specific product or application) when providing a product.  Terms of business have to comply with the law, just as they must in the U.S.; Canada just has more terms.</p><p>Yes I'm American.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your American libertarian view of the law sees this as a business transaction , where the user can either use the product ( and accept the terms of total data disclosure ) or not use it.Other countries with more civilized privacy laws prevent companies from demanding unnecessary personal data ( i.e .
anything not needed for the specific product or application ) when providing a product .
Terms of business have to comply with the law , just as they must in the U.S. ; Canada just has more terms.Yes I 'm American .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your American libertarian view of the law sees this as a business transaction, where the user can either use the product (and accept the terms of total data disclosure) or not use it.Other countries with more civilized privacy laws prevent companies from demanding unnecessary personal data (i.e.
anything not needed for the specific product or application) when providing a product.
Terms of business have to comply with the law, just as they must in the U.S.; Canada just has more terms.Yes I'm American.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731241</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731747</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>a-zarkon!</author>
	<datestamp>1247853660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the Facebook profile actually part of the job application?  Is there any requirement to populate the birth date field to set up a profile?  Is there any verbiage in the terms of use that you need to complete this and/or populate the field accurately?  I would expect that on an official job application or within the formal paperwork you will need to fill out if hired, you will need to provide accurate data including birth date, SSN, etc.  Employers need this to comply with tax codes, insurance, etc.  I doubt this requirement would extend to data in a Facebook profile.  Of course IANAL, don't work in HR, etc. so don't listen to me.</p><p>Personally I tend a bit toward the paranoid side and I'd want to actually talk to the corporate HR department or recruiter before providing any personal information.  Maybe this will cost me a job opportunity in the future, but I pretty much don't need to work for someone who can't explain what data they require, why they need it, and what they will use it for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the Facebook profile actually part of the job application ?
Is there any requirement to populate the birth date field to set up a profile ?
Is there any verbiage in the terms of use that you need to complete this and/or populate the field accurately ?
I would expect that on an official job application or within the formal paperwork you will need to fill out if hired , you will need to provide accurate data including birth date , SSN , etc .
Employers need this to comply with tax codes , insurance , etc .
I doubt this requirement would extend to data in a Facebook profile .
Of course IANAL , do n't work in HR , etc .
so do n't listen to me.Personally I tend a bit toward the paranoid side and I 'd want to actually talk to the corporate HR department or recruiter before providing any personal information .
Maybe this will cost me a job opportunity in the future , but I pretty much do n't need to work for someone who ca n't explain what data they require , why they need it , and what they will use it for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the Facebook profile actually part of the job application?
Is there any requirement to populate the birth date field to set up a profile?
Is there any verbiage in the terms of use that you need to complete this and/or populate the field accurately?
I would expect that on an official job application or within the formal paperwork you will need to fill out if hired, you will need to provide accurate data including birth date, SSN, etc.
Employers need this to comply with tax codes, insurance, etc.
I doubt this requirement would extend to data in a Facebook profile.
Of course IANAL, don't work in HR, etc.
so don't listen to me.Personally I tend a bit toward the paranoid side and I'd want to actually talk to the corporate HR department or recruiter before providing any personal information.
Maybe this will cost me a job opportunity in the future, but I pretty much don't need to work for someone who can't explain what data they require, why they need it, and what they will use it for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731081</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28739701</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>isBandGeek()</author>
	<datestamp>1247919780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're not a Facebook member and someone "tags" you in a photo, the result is an <strong>unsearchable</strong> tag. Besides, on what website do you have the privilege of pre-emptively removing photos of yourself? This is not a problem with Facebook: it is a problem with the Internet. Tough luck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're not a Facebook member and someone " tags " you in a photo , the result is an unsearchable tag .
Besides , on what website do you have the privilege of pre-emptively removing photos of yourself ?
This is not a problem with Facebook : it is a problem with the Internet .
Tough luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're not a Facebook member and someone "tags" you in a photo, the result is an unsearchable tag.
Besides, on what website do you have the privilege of pre-emptively removing photos of yourself?
This is not a problem with Facebook: it is a problem with the Internet.
Tough luck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732033</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247854800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Besides, who puts something on Facebook that they \_want\_ to keep \_private\_?</p><p>Sometimes, it's the ignorant friend who posts the data that you want to keep private for you.  Even if you're not a Facebook user.</p><p>[Tagged] "Grant Lawson passed out on the floor from too much cocaine at last night's orgy!!LOLOL!!!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Besides , who puts something on Facebook that they \ _want \ _ to keep \ _private \ _ ? Sometimes , it 's the ignorant friend who posts the data that you want to keep private for you .
Even if you 're not a Facebook user .
[ Tagged ] " Grant Lawson passed out on the floor from too much cocaine at last night 's orgy ! ! LOLOL ! ! !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Besides, who puts something on Facebook that they \_want\_ to keep \_private\_?Sometimes, it's the ignorant friend who posts the data that you want to keep private for you.
Even if you're not a Facebook user.
[Tagged] "Grant Lawson passed out on the floor from too much cocaine at last night's orgy!!LOLOL!!!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731433</id>
	<title>What Privacy Law?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247852340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Canada's constitution is in the same shape as the U.S.constitution:  BURNED.</p><p>In other news ( in case you've been spider-holed with<br>Richard B. Cheney) :  Iran ( aka  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud\_Ahmadinejad" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Ahmadinejad</a> [wikipedia.org] is crumbling.</p><p>Yours In Revolution,<br>Kilgore Trout, Marxist</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Canada 's constitution is in the same shape as the U.S.constitution : BURNED.In other news ( in case you 've been spider-holed withRichard B. Cheney ) : Iran ( aka Ahmadinejad [ wikipedia.org ] is crumbling.Yours In Revolution,Kilgore Trout , Marxist</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canada's constitution is in the same shape as the U.S.constitution:  BURNED.In other news ( in case you've been spider-holed withRichard B. Cheney) :  Iran ( aka  Ahmadinejad [wikipedia.org] is crumbling.Yours In Revolution,Kilgore Trout, Marxist</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731027</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solution</title>
	<author>MadCow42</author>
	<datestamp>1247850480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree - if Facebook doesn't have a Canadian legal entity, nor Canadian hosting, the answer is "who cares"?  I'm Canadian, BTW.</p><p>Just because there's users on FB from all around the world, it doesn't mean that FB has to abide by all countries' laws.  If that were the case, the Internet would be a hobbled and useless mess.</p><p>MadCow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree - if Facebook does n't have a Canadian legal entity , nor Canadian hosting , the answer is " who cares " ?
I 'm Canadian , BTW.Just because there 's users on FB from all around the world , it does n't mean that FB has to abide by all countries ' laws .
If that were the case , the Internet would be a hobbled and useless mess.MadCow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree - if Facebook doesn't have a Canadian legal entity, nor Canadian hosting, the answer is "who cares"?
I'm Canadian, BTW.Just because there's users on FB from all around the world, it doesn't mean that FB has to abide by all countries' laws.
If that were the case, the Internet would be a hobbled and useless mess.MadCow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28733645</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>hellocatfood</author>
	<datestamp>1247862180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Besides, who puts something on Facebook that they \_want\_ to keep \_private\_?</p></div><p>Everyone and their mother. They put a username and password into a website and they think it's secure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , who puts something on Facebook that they \ _want \ _ to keep \ _private \ _ ? Everyone and their mother .
They put a username and password into a website and they think it 's secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, who puts something on Facebook that they \_want\_ to keep \_private\_?Everyone and their mother.
They put a username and password into a website and they think it's secure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731769</id>
	<title>Re:Draconian Laws</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247853720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My wife signed up for a Twitter account recently.  She said it was because she found she could never say anything (say, vaguely complain about a friend's manners) on Facebook because her friends would ask probing questions.  How's that for irony?  I told her to buy a diary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My wife signed up for a Twitter account recently .
She said it was because she found she could never say anything ( say , vaguely complain about a friend 's manners ) on Facebook because her friends would ask probing questions .
How 's that for irony ?
I told her to buy a diary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My wife signed up for a Twitter account recently.
She said it was because she found she could never say anything (say, vaguely complain about a friend's manners) on Facebook because her friends would ask probing questions.
How's that for irony?
I told her to buy a diary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28734199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28738253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731889
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731269
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28739701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28737351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732659
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28733271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28733645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731769
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28733213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731747
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28738241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28734159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731315
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28752707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730987
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28733521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28733701
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732929
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1346209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28738141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1346209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731543
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1346209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28733213
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1346209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1346209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1346209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732083
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1346209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28734199
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1346209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1346209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28734159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1346209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731027
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731313
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28738241
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28733701
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731481
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1346209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28737351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28738253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731081
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731747
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732317
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732501
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730987
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731241
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732825
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28752707
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28731557
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732929
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28732095
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28733521
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28739701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28733645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28733271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28738141
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1346209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1346209.28730891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
