<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_19_219248</id>
	<title>Google Voice Mails Found In Public Search Engine</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1255946100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bonch writes <i>"Google Voice Mails have been <a href="http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2009/10/19/random-users-google-voice-mail-is-searchable-by-anyone/">discovered in Google's search engine</a>, providing audio files, names, and phone number as if you were logged in and checking your own voice mail.  Some appear to be test messages, while <a href="https://www.google.com/voice/fm/04807385505702370642/AHwOX\_CFSs6rxsKN6d5wEznZyECtNntLn-O39x8W0KU3lE7CrAXz1IOHsoIn1Ir2q0xuWyAQpl1ssu6vW3Zfbx19y\_0omVoyu-eJ5icOdpiSj2okVIYghiJdCsBX0KTaS425DnP6BVw5g2PhNCKiRa2d5FXytb59BA">others are clearly not</a>.  Google has since disabled indexing of voice mails outside your own website."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bonch writes " Google Voice Mails have been discovered in Google 's search engine , providing audio files , names , and phone number as if you were logged in and checking your own voice mail .
Some appear to be test messages , while others are clearly not .
Google has since disabled indexing of voice mails outside your own website .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bonch writes "Google Voice Mails have been discovered in Google's search engine, providing audio files, names, and phone number as if you were logged in and checking your own voice mail.
Some appear to be test messages, while others are clearly not.
Google has since disabled indexing of voice mails outside your own website.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29802009</id>
	<title>Re:User action?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255956660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how is a page that shows private user data without requiring a cookie or authentication not a bug or a leak?</p><p>they are playing the microsoft security through obscurity card and taking in a long message id and treating it as security credentials to view that message.</p><p>that is FAIL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how is a page that shows private user data without requiring a cookie or authentication not a bug or a leak ? they are playing the microsoft security through obscurity card and taking in a long message id and treating it as security credentials to view that message.that is FAIL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how is a page that shows private user data without requiring a cookie or authentication not a bug or a leak?they are playing the microsoft security through obscurity card and taking in a long message id and treating it as security credentials to view that message.that is FAIL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29804033</id>
	<title>Re:my favorite (so far)</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1255972200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. Alien tickling ray attack. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
Alien tickling ray attack .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
Alien tickling ray attack.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29802349</id>
	<title>Re:The Real Problem is ...</title>
	<author>Omnifarious</author>
	<datestamp>1255958580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And, you know, if I 'reverse engineer' the right bunch of binary digits I can read all the credit card information in your https transactions.  That bunch of binary digits being your AES key.</p><p>If Google was in the least intelligent, that string would either be a random number or a hash (basically a random number if you don't know the exact data that went into it) of the voicemail contents plus the user and some other stuff.  Personally, I expect they are in the least intelligent and that the URL is about as 'reverse engineerable' as the AES key your browser used to talk to the place you bought your latest motherboard from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And , you know , if I 'reverse engineer ' the right bunch of binary digits I can read all the credit card information in your https transactions .
That bunch of binary digits being your AES key.If Google was in the least intelligent , that string would either be a random number or a hash ( basically a random number if you do n't know the exact data that went into it ) of the voicemail contents plus the user and some other stuff .
Personally , I expect they are in the least intelligent and that the URL is about as 'reverse engineerable ' as the AES key your browser used to talk to the place you bought your latest motherboard from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, you know, if I 'reverse engineer' the right bunch of binary digits I can read all the credit card information in your https transactions.
That bunch of binary digits being your AES key.If Google was in the least intelligent, that string would either be a random number or a hash (basically a random number if you don't know the exact data that went into it) of the voicemail contents plus the user and some other stuff.
Personally, I expect they are in the least intelligent and that the URL is about as 'reverse engineerable' as the AES key your browser used to talk to the place you bought your latest motherboard from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801077</id>
	<title>Not a new problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255951380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Information wants to be free...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Information wants to be free.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Information wants to be free...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801957</id>
	<title>The voicemails were published (not by google)</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1255956180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Other websites provided links to the voice mails.
</p><p>
Google gives each voicemail a secret URL.   If you choose publish the secret URL of one of your voicemail messages, then the voicemail message is no longer secret.
</p><p>
Google's search service was just making URLs of messages that has been published searchable.
</p><p>
Any search engine could and (does) index the very same.
</p><p>
GoogleBot doesn't have any privileged access to index Google Voicemail messages that the account holder didn't make public (by publishing URLS to)
</p><p>
If you ask me, however:   I think   Google Voice  should default to only allowing the account owner to see messages.
</p><p>
If you want to "share" a message,  there should be a flag you need to set on the message  to make it publicly visible  (that you can later revoke),  or an account-wide  setting you need to turn on before you can share messages.
</p><p>
This way, people who don't normally share their messages will have a protection more like what they are familiar with  re.  E-mail.
</p><p>
As far as I know, you can't (yet)  publish a  Gmail.com URL online  and let other people read one of your e-mail messages...     what justification is there for Google Voice  to be different by default?
</p><p>
Most people do not commonly publish their voicemail messages, although some might wish to share with friends.
</p><p>
An issue is that voicemail messages generally include phone numbers, and these are generally considered personal/private.
</p><p>
It is poor etiquette to publish someone else's phone number without permission.....
</p><p>
Therefore, a (suitable) privacy default for shared voicemail, should   in some manner censor phone numbers  (such as by replacing with a handle, alias, or nickname)
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other websites provided links to the voice mails .
Google gives each voicemail a secret URL .
If you choose publish the secret URL of one of your voicemail messages , then the voicemail message is no longer secret .
Google 's search service was just making URLs of messages that has been published searchable .
Any search engine could and ( does ) index the very same .
GoogleBot does n't have any privileged access to index Google Voicemail messages that the account holder did n't make public ( by publishing URLS to ) If you ask me , however : I think Google Voice should default to only allowing the account owner to see messages .
If you want to " share " a message , there should be a flag you need to set on the message to make it publicly visible ( that you can later revoke ) , or an account-wide setting you need to turn on before you can share messages .
This way , people who do n't normally share their messages will have a protection more like what they are familiar with re .
E-mail . As far as I know , you ca n't ( yet ) publish a Gmail.com URL online and let other people read one of your e-mail messages... what justification is there for Google Voice to be different by default ?
Most people do not commonly publish their voicemail messages , although some might wish to share with friends .
An issue is that voicemail messages generally include phone numbers , and these are generally considered personal/private .
It is poor etiquette to publish someone else 's phone number without permission.... . Therefore , a ( suitable ) privacy default for shared voicemail , should in some manner censor phone numbers ( such as by replacing with a handle , alias , or nickname )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Other websites provided links to the voice mails.
Google gives each voicemail a secret URL.
If you choose publish the secret URL of one of your voicemail messages, then the voicemail message is no longer secret.
Google's search service was just making URLs of messages that has been published searchable.
Any search engine could and (does) index the very same.
GoogleBot doesn't have any privileged access to index Google Voicemail messages that the account holder didn't make public (by publishing URLS to)

If you ask me, however:   I think   Google Voice  should default to only allowing the account owner to see messages.
If you want to "share" a message,  there should be a flag you need to set on the message  to make it publicly visible  (that you can later revoke),  or an account-wide  setting you need to turn on before you can share messages.
This way, people who don't normally share their messages will have a protection more like what they are familiar with  re.
E-mail.

As far as I know, you can't (yet)  publish a  Gmail.com URL online  and let other people read one of your e-mail messages...     what justification is there for Google Voice  to be different by default?
Most people do not commonly publish their voicemail messages, although some might wish to share with friends.
An issue is that voicemail messages generally include phone numbers, and these are generally considered personal/private.
It is poor etiquette to publish someone else's phone number without permission.....

Therefore, a (suitable) privacy default for shared voicemail, should   in some manner censor phone numbers  (such as by replacing with a handle, alias, or nickname)
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801835</id>
	<title>Re:User action?</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1255955460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This doesn't sound like a bug or leak, more like some users set up links or otherwise made their messages public.</p></div><p>I can't log into google voice without telling my browser to accept cookies from google.  If they are going to use cookie-based authorization, then there is absolutely no excuse for handing out the data within an account to people who don't have the right cookie authorization.</p><p>Even if they don't index it, the URLs are still going to be accessible to anyone who can figure out the URL.<br>It appears to be a classic case of security through obscurity.<br>Obscurity as an extra layer is fine, but google voice seems to have no layers excepet for obscurity and that's a ridiculous design decision for a company as big a reptuation for technical acumen as google.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't sound like a bug or leak , more like some users set up links or otherwise made their messages public.I ca n't log into google voice without telling my browser to accept cookies from google .
If they are going to use cookie-based authorization , then there is absolutely no excuse for handing out the data within an account to people who do n't have the right cookie authorization.Even if they do n't index it , the URLs are still going to be accessible to anyone who can figure out the URL.It appears to be a classic case of security through obscurity.Obscurity as an extra layer is fine , but google voice seems to have no layers excepet for obscurity and that 's a ridiculous design decision for a company as big a reptuation for technical acumen as google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't sound like a bug or leak, more like some users set up links or otherwise made their messages public.I can't log into google voice without telling my browser to accept cookies from google.
If they are going to use cookie-based authorization, then there is absolutely no excuse for handing out the data within an account to people who don't have the right cookie authorization.Even if they don't index it, the URLs are still going to be accessible to anyone who can figure out the URL.It appears to be a classic case of security through obscurity.Obscurity as an extra layer is fine, but google voice seems to have no layers excepet for obscurity and that's a ridiculous design decision for a company as big a reptuation for technical acumen as google.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29805725</id>
	<title>yahoo too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256039700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also Yahoo! is indexing these pages:<br>http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/search?p=https://www.google.com/voice/fm/&amp;y=Explore+URL&amp;fr=sfp</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also Yahoo !
is indexing these pages : http : //siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/search ? p = https : //www.google.com/voice/fm/&amp;y = Explore + URL&amp;fr = sfp</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also Yahoo!
is indexing these pages:http://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/search?p=https://www.google.com/voice/fm/&amp;y=Explore+URL&amp;fr=sfp</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801187</id>
	<title>the drunk monkey is crystal clear about reality</title>
	<author>gEvil (beta)</author>
	<datestamp>1255952040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="https://www.google.com/voice/fm/13418109598078281795/AHwOX\_AtuVWE-1BTPAft-98LVo1lwr9Nnvj3CLwprkhwicG8QqlcsAjvMTrSkhc9hzrXRdhCUiIK3pkrWUmoBS1U5bvgRlM51U1B6ewXjR7oqvw9xGIEa6HMtxWQjAr455PW0JF60kcdhJ\_OxeJjFjwWfACfkpEi3A" title="google.com">Uhhh, yeah...</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhhh , yeah... [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhhh, yeah... [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801641</id>
	<title>Re:User action?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1255954380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It sounds like something that wouldn't happen if you used commodity PC hardware to set up your own voice mail system.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, if you used commodity PC hardware to set up your own voice mail system, you probably wouldn't have automatic transcription that it would be even theoretically possible for you to directly post your voice mails on the web, so it wouldn't be possible for you to expose information the way you could choose to do with Google Voice.</p><p>OTOH, it would be a lot more expensive for the fewer features you would get, so I'm not sure its all that worth it. It would be easier just to use Google voice and not post your own voice mails.</p><p>Note that all of these emails are emails for which the URLs were posted by the user on a public website, and which were subsequently (and as a result of that posting) crawled and indexed by search engines.</p><p>Oh, noes! Search engines find things that are posted publicly on the internet. The horror!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like something that would n't happen if you used commodity PC hardware to set up your own voice mail system.Yes , if you used commodity PC hardware to set up your own voice mail system , you probably would n't have automatic transcription that it would be even theoretically possible for you to directly post your voice mails on the web , so it would n't be possible for you to expose information the way you could choose to do with Google Voice.OTOH , it would be a lot more expensive for the fewer features you would get , so I 'm not sure its all that worth it .
It would be easier just to use Google voice and not post your own voice mails.Note that all of these emails are emails for which the URLs were posted by the user on a public website , and which were subsequently ( and as a result of that posting ) crawled and indexed by search engines.Oh , noes !
Search engines find things that are posted publicly on the internet .
The horror !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like something that wouldn't happen if you used commodity PC hardware to set up your own voice mail system.Yes, if you used commodity PC hardware to set up your own voice mail system, you probably wouldn't have automatic transcription that it would be even theoretically possible for you to directly post your voice mails on the web, so it wouldn't be possible for you to expose information the way you could choose to do with Google Voice.OTOH, it would be a lot more expensive for the fewer features you would get, so I'm not sure its all that worth it.
It would be easier just to use Google voice and not post your own voice mails.Note that all of these emails are emails for which the URLs were posted by the user on a public website, and which were subsequently (and as a result of that posting) crawled and indexed by search engines.Oh, noes!
Search engines find things that are posted publicly on the internet.
The horror!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29802521</id>
	<title>Re:Article is already updated</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1255959540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if Bing or Yahoo or other websites have the voicemails in their indexes as well?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if Bing or Yahoo or other websites have the voicemails in their indexes as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if Bing or Yahoo or other websites have the voicemails in their indexes as well?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801505</id>
	<title>The summary already mentioned that update</title>
	<author>Overly Critical Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1255953600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the summary:</p><blockquote><div><p>Google has since disabled indexing of voice mails outside your own website."</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the summary : Google has since disabled indexing of voice mails outside your own website .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the summary:Google has since disabled indexing of voice mails outside your own website.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801245</id>
	<title>Re:If it's out there</title>
	<author>Cal27</author>
	<datestamp>1255952400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree, I've often wondered when Google is going to make a voice command and dictation program.<br>
I guess you could always just dictate to your voicemail box until then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , I 've often wondered when Google is going to make a voice command and dictation program .
I guess you could always just dictate to your voicemail box until then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, I've often wondered when Google is going to make a voice command and dictation program.
I guess you could always just dictate to your voicemail box until then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29803847</id>
	<title>Re:Google voice to speech is (relatively) crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255970280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>while i was reading this, i thought you were claiming that the same voice message resulted in the two transcripts... needless to say, i was about to declare this bullsh!t.</htmltext>
<tokenext>while i was reading this , i thought you were claiming that the same voice message resulted in the two transcripts... needless to say , i was about to declare this bullsh ! t .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>while i was reading this, i thought you were claiming that the same voice message resulted in the two transcripts... needless to say, i was about to declare this bullsh!t.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801267</id>
	<title>Re:Article is already updated</title>
	<author>Animaether</author>
	<datestamp>1255952460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems a bit odd...</p><blockquote><div><p>we can certainly understand that users would want to make them public on their sites but not necessarily searchable directly outside of their own website. We made a change to prevent those to be crawled so only the site owner can decide to index them</p></div></blockquote><p>Don't we, and Google, usually tell people to use robots.txt if they want to restrict crawling?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems a bit odd...we can certainly understand that users would want to make them public on their sites but not necessarily searchable directly outside of their own website .
We made a change to prevent those to be crawled so only the site owner can decide to index themDo n't we , and Google , usually tell people to use robots.txt if they want to restrict crawling ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems a bit odd...we can certainly understand that users would want to make them public on their sites but not necessarily searchable directly outside of their own website.
We made a change to prevent those to be crawled so only the site owner can decide to index themDon't we, and Google, usually tell people to use robots.txt if they want to restrict crawling?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29803627</id>
	<title>Re:User action?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255968300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I can't log into google voice without telling my browser to accept cookies from google.  If they are going to use cookie-based authorization, then there is absolutely no excuse for handing out the data within an account to people who don't have the right cookie authorization.</p><p>Even if they don't index it, the URLs are still going to be accessible to anyone who can figure out the URL.</p></div><p>It sounds like a classic case of URL is autogenerated when I click the share link. If I want to post a voicemail on my blog I don't want all of my readers to have to be individually assigned access.</p><p>Biggest story here is the (probable) inability to unshare voicemails once you have shared them.</p><p>People are just making an assumption that emails you haven't yet shared are also stored at these links, but there is no evidence of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't log into google voice without telling my browser to accept cookies from google .
If they are going to use cookie-based authorization , then there is absolutely no excuse for handing out the data within an account to people who do n't have the right cookie authorization.Even if they do n't index it , the URLs are still going to be accessible to anyone who can figure out the URL.It sounds like a classic case of URL is autogenerated when I click the share link .
If I want to post a voicemail on my blog I do n't want all of my readers to have to be individually assigned access.Biggest story here is the ( probable ) inability to unshare voicemails once you have shared them.People are just making an assumption that emails you have n't yet shared are also stored at these links , but there is no evidence of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't log into google voice without telling my browser to accept cookies from google.
If they are going to use cookie-based authorization, then there is absolutely no excuse for handing out the data within an account to people who don't have the right cookie authorization.Even if they don't index it, the URLs are still going to be accessible to anyone who can figure out the URL.It sounds like a classic case of URL is autogenerated when I click the share link.
If I want to post a voicemail on my blog I don't want all of my readers to have to be individually assigned access.Biggest story here is the (probable) inability to unshare voicemails once you have shared them.People are just making an assumption that emails you haven't yet shared are also stored at these links, but there is no evidence of it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801777</id>
	<title>Google is Big Brother?</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1255955100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this a violation of privacy via Google Voice? We already know Google allows us to search our GMail email files, what if they too get made public? Google Voice Mail files should only be readable/audio to the person it is assigned to and not made public for everyone to listen in to.</p><p>The text to speech of Google Voice is clearly vary good. Almost as good as the Vonage text to speech in voicemail.</p><p>But I don't want to use Google Voice Mail if Voice Mail is made public. This is a security problem for Google who should have known better. Voice Mail should be private unless the owner wants it published like for example in a law suit or something where it is used as evidence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this a violation of privacy via Google Voice ?
We already know Google allows us to search our GMail email files , what if they too get made public ?
Google Voice Mail files should only be readable/audio to the person it is assigned to and not made public for everyone to listen in to.The text to speech of Google Voice is clearly vary good .
Almost as good as the Vonage text to speech in voicemail.But I do n't want to use Google Voice Mail if Voice Mail is made public .
This is a security problem for Google who should have known better .
Voice Mail should be private unless the owner wants it published like for example in a law suit or something where it is used as evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this a violation of privacy via Google Voice?
We already know Google allows us to search our GMail email files, what if they too get made public?
Google Voice Mail files should only be readable/audio to the person it is assigned to and not made public for everyone to listen in to.The text to speech of Google Voice is clearly vary good.
Almost as good as the Vonage text to speech in voicemail.But I don't want to use Google Voice Mail if Voice Mail is made public.
This is a security problem for Google who should have known better.
Voice Mail should be private unless the owner wants it published like for example in a law suit or something where it is used as evidence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800905</id>
	<title>Article is already updated</title>
	<author>vxvxvxvx</author>
	<datestamp>1255950300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>UPDATE: It seems as if these voicemails have been publicly posted/shared online and Google indexes them. Here&rsquo;s official word:</p><p>&ldquo;Since the initial idea behind posting a voicemail, was precisely to share it with others, we did not restrict crawling of those messages that users post on the web, but we can certainly understand that users would want to make them public on their sites but not necessarily searchable directly outside of their own website. We made a change to prevent those to be crawled so only the site owner can decide to index them.&rdquo;</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>UPDATE : It seems as if these voicemails have been publicly posted/shared online and Google indexes them .
Here    s official word :    Since the initial idea behind posting a voicemail , was precisely to share it with others , we did not restrict crawling of those messages that users post on the web , but we can certainly understand that users would want to make them public on their sites but not necessarily searchable directly outside of their own website .
We made a change to prevent those to be crawled so only the site owner can decide to index them.   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>UPDATE: It seems as if these voicemails have been publicly posted/shared online and Google indexes them.
Here’s official word:“Since the initial idea behind posting a voicemail, was precisely to share it with others, we did not restrict crawling of those messages that users post on the web, but we can certainly understand that users would want to make them public on their sites but not necessarily searchable directly outside of their own website.
We made a change to prevent those to be crawled so only the site owner can decide to index them.”
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801687</id>
	<title>Re:The Real Problem is ...</title>
	<author>BobPaul</author>
	<datestamp>1255954680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is that even true? If you choose "Download" and copy the URL it gives you for the wav file, you can't use the link unless your logged it. It's my assumption that to get a public URL of the scheme "google.com/voice/fm/*" you need to first choose the option to e-mail a voice mail and include a public link. Perhaps that's a poor assumption on my part. Do we have evidence that it's one way or the other?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that even true ?
If you choose " Download " and copy the URL it gives you for the wav file , you ca n't use the link unless your logged it .
It 's my assumption that to get a public URL of the scheme " google.com/voice/fm/ * " you need to first choose the option to e-mail a voice mail and include a public link .
Perhaps that 's a poor assumption on my part .
Do we have evidence that it 's one way or the other ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that even true?
If you choose "Download" and copy the URL it gives you for the wav file, you can't use the link unless your logged it.
It's my assumption that to get a public URL of the scheme "google.com/voice/fm/*" you need to first choose the option to e-mail a voice mail and include a public link.
Perhaps that's a poor assumption on my part.
Do we have evidence that it's one way or the other?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29802031</id>
	<title>BGR isn't the "exclusive" first story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255956720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>BGR stole it from 4chan's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/g/ (technology) board last night. <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;rls=org.mozilla\%3Aen-US\%3Aofficial&amp;hs=HS2&amp;q=google+voice+public+site\%3Azip.4chan.org\%2Fg&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">See Google's index</a> [google.com] for proof. We were discussing it at 2AM, someone tipped off google, and BGR saw it on 4chan &amp; reported on it. They misrepresent themselves as the story source, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>BGR stole it from 4chan 's /g/ ( technology ) board last night .
See Google 's index [ google.com ] for proof .
We were discussing it at 2AM , someone tipped off google , and BGR saw it on 4chan &amp; reported on it .
They misrepresent themselves as the story source , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BGR stole it from 4chan's /g/ (technology) board last night.
See Google's index [google.com] for proof.
We were discussing it at 2AM, someone tipped off google, and BGR saw it on 4chan &amp; reported on it.
They misrepresent themselves as the story source, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29802977</id>
	<title>Re:The Real Problem is ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255963080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The real problem, IMO, is that Google Voice voicemails are world-readable to begin with. The only security is the URL scheme.</p></div><p> <a href="http://some-site/some-service/some-item/2bdccb1f-08d9-4f0d-a270-bc061f0c475f" title="some-site">http://some-site/some-service/some-item/2bdccb1f-08d9-4f0d-a270-bc061f0c475f</a> [some-site]
</p><p> <a href="http://some-site/some-service/some-item?user=youruserid&amp;password=12345" title="some-site">http://some-site/some-service/some-item?user=youruserid&amp;password=12345</a> [some-site]
</p><p>
Which is more secure?  "Authentication" is just a URL, after all.  (true, posts are handled slightly differently by browsers, but it's essentially the same as a get.  It's all http in the end.)
</p><p>
I like obfuscated URLs since I don't have to create a new thing to remember to access it.  I can just look up the URL in my mail client or whatever.  And I don't believe that it significantly reduces the access control.  Let me know if I'm wrong.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem , IMO , is that Google Voice voicemails are world-readable to begin with .
The only security is the URL scheme .
http : //some-site/some-service/some-item/2bdccb1f-08d9-4f0d-a270-bc061f0c475f [ some-site ] http : //some-site/some-service/some-item ? user = youruserid&amp;password = 12345 [ some-site ] Which is more secure ?
" Authentication " is just a URL , after all .
( true , posts are handled slightly differently by browsers , but it 's essentially the same as a get .
It 's all http in the end .
) I like obfuscated URLs since I do n't have to create a new thing to remember to access it .
I can just look up the URL in my mail client or whatever .
And I do n't believe that it significantly reduces the access control .
Let me know if I 'm wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem, IMO, is that Google Voice voicemails are world-readable to begin with.
The only security is the URL scheme.
http://some-site/some-service/some-item/2bdccb1f-08d9-4f0d-a270-bc061f0c475f [some-site]
 http://some-site/some-service/some-item?user=youruserid&amp;password=12345 [some-site]

Which is more secure?
"Authentication" is just a URL, after all.
(true, posts are handled slightly differently by browsers, but it's essentially the same as a get.
It's all http in the end.
)

I like obfuscated URLs since I don't have to create a new thing to remember to access it.
I can just look up the URL in my mail client or whatever.
And I don't believe that it significantly reduces the access control.
Let me know if I'm wrong.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801061</id>
	<title>Appropriate</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1255951320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was that appropriate?  Posting that voice mail that has names numbers and locations?</p><p>Extremely poor ethics here at Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was that appropriate ?
Posting that voice mail that has names numbers and locations ? Extremely poor ethics here at Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was that appropriate?
Posting that voice mail that has names numbers and locations?Extremely poor ethics here at Slashdot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800867</id>
	<title>three words:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255950180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tucker Max FAIL!!!!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tucker Max FAIL ! ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tucker Max FAIL!!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801009</id>
	<title>Re:Article is already updated</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1255951020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"[...] we can certainly understand that users would want to make them [voice messages] public on their sites but not necessarily searchable directly outside of their own website. We made a change to prevent those to be crawled so only the site owner can decide to index them."</p></div>
</blockquote><p>So in other words, Google supports robots.txt? Still, if you put them on your website, <i>some</i> search engine <i>will</i> index them. Moral of the story: don't make something accessible by anyone on the web unless you want anyone to be able to access it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" [ ... ] we can certainly understand that users would want to make them [ voice messages ] public on their sites but not necessarily searchable directly outside of their own website .
We made a change to prevent those to be crawled so only the site owner can decide to index them .
" So in other words , Google supports robots.txt ?
Still , if you put them on your website , some search engine will index them .
Moral of the story : do n't make something accessible by anyone on the web unless you want anyone to be able to access it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"[...] we can certainly understand that users would want to make them [voice messages] public on their sites but not necessarily searchable directly outside of their own website.
We made a change to prevent those to be crawled so only the site owner can decide to index them.
"
So in other words, Google supports robots.txt?
Still, if you put them on your website, some search engine will index them.
Moral of the story: don't make something accessible by anyone on the web unless you want anyone to be able to access it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801661</id>
	<title>Voice MailSSSSS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255954560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are mails?  It's mail.  Not mails.  Learn it, love it.</p><p>Catpcha: pointing... pointing out small mistakes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are mails ?
It 's mail .
Not mails .
Learn it , love it.Catpcha : pointing... pointing out small mistakes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are mails?
It's mail.
Not mails.
Learn it, love it.Catpcha: pointing... pointing out small mistakes?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29806061</id>
	<title>Re:The Real Problem is ...</title>
	<author>ei4anb</author>
	<datestamp>1256043540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another risk is the interaction with any desktop or proxy software that leaks the URLs. Many systems seem secure but have unintended consequences when used with another system. For example, once the administrator of the proxy learns the "20-digit account id" of the CEOs voicemail a simple grep thru the logs would give access.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another risk is the interaction with any desktop or proxy software that leaks the URLs .
Many systems seem secure but have unintended consequences when used with another system .
For example , once the administrator of the proxy learns the " 20-digit account id " of the CEOs voicemail a simple grep thru the logs would give access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another risk is the interaction with any desktop or proxy software that leaks the URLs.
Many systems seem secure but have unintended consequences when used with another system.
For example, once the administrator of the proxy learns the "20-digit account id" of the CEOs voicemail a simple grep thru the logs would give access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800889</id>
	<title>Natural Language Processing Needs Work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255950300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like they got <a href="https://www.google.com/voice/fm/06974281305002571178/AHwOX\_BZv6FHmLoE8u1sr0JsFLsFUv2j\_ij1GTLU\_\_9K0x0ta3\_OuVxudk0T4oS90mMVyJKZnRrZSupdMLUW-pN92R09lEfFQz1RPTFlfhVm3ZtpOJ-DY2rmafTgzRU7c6uZ54SlgKXCF4ZXDAxDR9EsXiRYULexzA" title="google.com">my message to Steve Ballmer</a> [google.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like they got my message to Steve Ballmer [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like they got my message to Steve Ballmer [google.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29803857</id>
	<title>Re:my favorite (so far)</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1255970460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it sounds to me like a bunch of pigs are getting gang-raped and chopped to pieces by escaped criminally insane convicts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it sounds to me like a bunch of pigs are getting gang-raped and chopped to pieces by escaped criminally insane convicts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it sounds to me like a bunch of pigs are getting gang-raped and chopped to pieces by escaped criminally insane convicts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800841</id>
	<title>User action?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255950060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This doesn't sound like a bug or leak, more like some users set up links or otherwise made their messages public.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't sound like a bug or leak , more like some users set up links or otherwise made their messages public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't sound like a bug or leak, more like some users set up links or otherwise made their messages public.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801277</id>
	<title>Looks like</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255952520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>kdawson figured out timothy's password.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>kdawson figured out timothy 's password .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kdawson figured out timothy's password.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800803</id>
	<title>I dont want to listen to my voice mails</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255949880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>and dont really care if you do.

But bad move google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and dont really care if you do .
But bad move google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and dont really care if you do.
But bad move google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801097</id>
	<title>The Real Problem is ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255951500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The real problem, IMO, is that Google Voice voicemails are world-readable to begin with.  The only security is the URL scheme.  If that can be reverse engineered, the privacy of all google voice users will be in danger.
(fyi I have tested this myself.  The url scheme is "https://www.google.com/voice/fm/20-digit account id/long b64 encoded binary string", and these urls can be viewed by unauthenticated users.  Note the use of https; while no man in the middle will read my voicemail, the man on one end can<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem , IMO , is that Google Voice voicemails are world-readable to begin with .
The only security is the URL scheme .
If that can be reverse engineered , the privacy of all google voice users will be in danger .
( fyi I have tested this myself .
The url scheme is " https : //www.google.com/voice/fm/20-digit account id/long b64 encoded binary string " , and these urls can be viewed by unauthenticated users .
Note the use of https ; while no man in the middle will read my voicemail , the man on one end can ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem, IMO, is that Google Voice voicemails are world-readable to begin with.
The only security is the URL scheme.
If that can be reverse engineered, the privacy of all google voice users will be in danger.
(fyi I have tested this myself.
The url scheme is "https://www.google.com/voice/fm/20-digit account id/long b64 encoded binary string", and these urls can be viewed by unauthenticated users.
Note the use of https; while no man in the middle will read my voicemail, the man on one end can ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29805471</id>
	<title>User contraction?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256035920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It sounds like something that wouldn't happen if you used commodity PC hardware to set up your own voice mail system."</p><p>Hmmm, I'll take<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....answering machine for $10 Alex.</p><p>"It's difficult to put a dollar amount on it, but maintaining control over your own data and systems is quite valuable all the same."</p><p>By Insular Inc we bring you, Internet in a box. Gain all the joys of the internet without a connection to the outside world. Twitter yourself all day long. Set up Youtube and discover you CAN bend like that. My-space page were your multiple personalities can discover each other. For that genuine internet experience, if you reply now? We'll throw in Echelon were you listen in on your deepest secrets and then expose yourself. *zziiiippp* [censored]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It sounds like something that would n't happen if you used commodity PC hardware to set up your own voice mail system .
" Hmmm , I 'll take ....answering machine for $ 10 Alex .
" It 's difficult to put a dollar amount on it , but maintaining control over your own data and systems is quite valuable all the same .
" By Insular Inc we bring you , Internet in a box .
Gain all the joys of the internet without a connection to the outside world .
Twitter yourself all day long .
Set up Youtube and discover you CAN bend like that .
My-space page were your multiple personalities can discover each other .
For that genuine internet experience , if you reply now ?
We 'll throw in Echelon were you listen in on your deepest secrets and then expose yourself .
* zziiiippp * [ censored ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It sounds like something that wouldn't happen if you used commodity PC hardware to set up your own voice mail system.
"Hmmm, I'll take ....answering machine for $10 Alex.
"It's difficult to put a dollar amount on it, but maintaining control over your own data and systems is quite valuable all the same.
"By Insular Inc we bring you, Internet in a box.
Gain all the joys of the internet without a connection to the outside world.
Twitter yourself all day long.
Set up Youtube and discover you CAN bend like that.
My-space page were your multiple personalities can discover each other.
For that genuine internet experience, if you reply now?
We'll throw in Echelon were you listen in on your deepest secrets and then expose yourself.
*zziiiippp* [censored]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29803771</id>
	<title>Re:my favorite (so far)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255969500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An interesting one I heard posted on another site... here's the comments from the person who posted it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>it's apparently a conversation between thach nguyen and his psychiatris http://www.thachnguyen.com/</p><p>The most fucked up part is at 11min where the doc tell him that he needs to stop helping other people through the work he does.</p><p>The doc is talking shit the entire time.</p><p>Scientology was right all along...</p></div><p>They were talking about <a href="https://www.google.com/voice/fm/13418109598078281795/AHwOX\_AtuVWE-1BTPAft-98LVo1lwr9Nnvj3CLwprkhwicG8QqlcsAjvMTrSkhc9hzrXRdhCUiIK3pkrWUmoBS1U5bvgRlM51U1B6ewXjR7oqvw9xGIEa6HMtxWQjAr455PW0JF60kcdhJ\_OxeJjFjwWfACfkpEi3A" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">this voicemail</a> [google.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An interesting one I heard posted on another site... here 's the comments from the person who posted it.it 's apparently a conversation between thach nguyen and his psychiatris http : //www.thachnguyen.com/The most fucked up part is at 11min where the doc tell him that he needs to stop helping other people through the work he does.The doc is talking shit the entire time.Scientology was right all along...They were talking about this voicemail [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An interesting one I heard posted on another site... here's the comments from the person who posted it.it's apparently a conversation between thach nguyen and his psychiatris http://www.thachnguyen.com/The most fucked up part is at 11min where the doc tell him that he needs to stop helping other people through the work he does.The doc is talking shit the entire time.Scientology was right all along...They were talking about this voicemail [google.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801119</id>
	<title>my favorite (so far)</title>
	<author>gEvil (beta)</author>
	<datestamp>1255951620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="https://www.google.com/voice/fm/09921222344585858756/AHwOX\_CAIPaucjwNL7yMyAvWxIgjmsALzumQAzSdw6YbgBMQQYx7GrPOCDApMW4pU14QMvCNtnYs3vqYGmpY7SdYvSG8bzYuRzYsQKb\_6ab8Ymk5RLvlRjWhtU1BDYs28Xij3MptGwLGGDQ6Xrh1ksXiGIkluk366Q" title="google.com">Butt dialing on a roller coaster?</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Butt dialing on a roller coaster ?
[ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Butt dialing on a roller coaster?
[google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29802341</id>
	<title>Re:Google voice to speech is (relatively) crap</title>
	<author>Mr2001</author>
	<datestamp>1255958580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's one I got a few weeks ago from Google Voice:<blockquote><div><p> Hello  voice  subscriber  what.  Hey  if  you  few  questions  for  you.  They  can  feel  me  6  like  a  year  like  2  years  ago  to  like  forever.  Go  you  came  over  and  I  was  locked  out  of  the  password  didn't  know  the  password  so  much  and  we  wanted.  Anybody  passed  it.  I  don't  know  how  you  guys  have  a  good  i  just  took  it  out  for  the  first  time  in  years  and  it  says  your  class  is  expired.  I  must  be  changed  and  I  go  to  that  the  windows  X  P  professional  you  went  and  dollar  dishing  whatever  it  is  really  old  addition,  windows  85,001  yet  and  it's  give  me  a  change.  Faster  screen  and  says,  administrative,  which  is  still  around.  Funny  has  got  hold  us  for  new  password.  I  confirm  you  got  through.  I've  any  idea  what  the  password  again,  30,  or  if  you're  more  than  the  who  knows  no  idea  what  it  would've  been  so  if  you  tell  me  but  sister  for  you  know  the  next  week,  otherwise,  I  was  gonna  go  out  to  confirm  for  some  a  long  time,  so  if  you  should  come  pick  the  and  a  case.</p></div>  </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's one I got a few weeks ago from Google Voice : Hello voice subscriber what .
Hey if you few questions for you .
They can feel me 6 like a year like 2 years ago to like forever .
Go you came over and I was locked out of the password did n't know the password so much and we wanted .
Anybody passed it .
I do n't know how you guys have a good i just took it out for the first time in years and it says your class is expired .
I must be changed and I go to that the windows X P professional you went and dollar dishing whatever it is really old addition , windows 85,001 yet and it 's give me a change .
Faster screen and says , administrative , which is still around .
Funny has got hold us for new password .
I confirm you got through .
I 've any idea what the password again , 30 , or if you 're more than the who knows no idea what it would 've been so if you tell me but sister for you know the next week , otherwise , I was gon na go out to confirm for some a long time , so if you should come pick the and a case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's one I got a few weeks ago from Google Voice: Hello  voice  subscriber  what.
Hey  if  you  few  questions  for  you.
They  can  feel  me  6  like  a  year  like  2  years  ago  to  like  forever.
Go  you  came  over  and  I  was  locked  out  of  the  password  didn't  know  the  password  so  much  and  we  wanted.
Anybody  passed  it.
I  don't  know  how  you  guys  have  a  good  i  just  took  it  out  for  the  first  time  in  years  and  it  says  your  class  is  expired.
I  must  be  changed  and  I  go  to  that  the  windows  X  P  professional  you  went  and  dollar  dishing  whatever  it  is  really  old  addition,  windows  85,001  yet  and  it's  give  me  a  change.
Faster  screen  and  says,  administrative,  which  is  still  around.
Funny  has  got  hold  us  for  new  password.
I  confirm  you  got  through.
I've  any  idea  what  the  password  again,  30,  or  if  you're  more  than  the  who  knows  no  idea  what  it  would've  been  so  if  you  tell  me  but  sister  for  you  know  the  next  week,  otherwise,  I  was  gonna  go  out  to  confirm  for  some  a  long  time,  so  if  you  should  come  pick  the  and  a  case.  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801407</id>
	<title>There is no free lunch...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255953120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... or free service. No business will give you anything for free. You pay for google services with your privacy. Some people find that this is a fair trade, others use secure services with guaranteed privacy, like <a href="http://www.xebba.com/" title="xebba.com" rel="nofollow"> xebba.com</a> [xebba.com] in exchange for the service fee.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... or free service .
No business will give you anything for free .
You pay for google services with your privacy .
Some people find that this is a fair trade , others use secure services with guaranteed privacy , like xebba.com [ xebba.com ] in exchange for the service fee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... or free service.
No business will give you anything for free.
You pay for google services with your privacy.
Some people find that this is a fair trade, others use secure services with guaranteed privacy, like  xebba.com [xebba.com] in exchange for the service fee.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800999</id>
	<title>Re:Article is already updated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255950960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>At around 10am, a <a href="http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2009/10/19/random-users-google-voice-mail-is-searchable-by-anyone/#comment-626720" title="boygeniusreport.com" rel="nofollow">comment</a> [boygeniusreport.com] on the same page linked by OP revealed what the parent has pointed out, and even linked to a GV forum post explaining as much.<br>
<br>
And yet, at 5pm, Slashdot posts this as news...</htmltext>
<tokenext>At around 10am , a comment [ boygeniusreport.com ] on the same page linked by OP revealed what the parent has pointed out , and even linked to a GV forum post explaining as much .
And yet , at 5pm , Slashdot posts this as news.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At around 10am, a comment [boygeniusreport.com] on the same page linked by OP revealed what the parent has pointed out, and even linked to a GV forum post explaining as much.
And yet, at 5pm, Slashdot posts this as news...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801091</id>
	<title>Needs a new button</title>
	<author>Megaweapon</author>
	<datestamp>1255951440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm Dialing Lucky</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm Dialing Lucky</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm Dialing Lucky</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29803831</id>
	<title>It's obviously user error</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255970100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or intentional on their part. It seems like they are only coming from a select few users, and most of them are obviously recordings that were meant to be shared. I don't think this is Google's fault and it doesn't sway me in the least from utilizing my Google Voice Number.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or intentional on their part .
It seems like they are only coming from a select few users , and most of them are obviously recordings that were meant to be shared .
I do n't think this is Google 's fault and it does n't sway me in the least from utilizing my Google Voice Number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or intentional on their part.
It seems like they are only coming from a select few users, and most of them are obviously recordings that were meant to be shared.
I don't think this is Google's fault and it doesn't sway me in the least from utilizing my Google Voice Number.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29810787</id>
	<title>Re:Google voice to speech is (relatively) crap</title>
	<author>LiquidAvatar</author>
	<datestamp>1256062740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And here's an edited for privacy transcription from Google Voice today: "Hi Alan, it's gia Craig over at Northeastern collagen help topped and my computer is dead. It's definitely not working or managers on my phone's working. I checked the lines it doesn't look like. Anything's Unplugged, but I've pushed in any way you push the button to turn it on. There's no white that goes on movie then Maher of a machine starting. It's just absolutely dead and so could you do call me back and and come today. I do have to run over to delivery of the office for a few minutes this morning and then but I did not half hour. I might be at Colin's desk and that is extension 251. If I'm not at my own here and I'm 253. Thanks a lot. Bye bye."</p></div><p>Funny... this is what I hear whenever a user asks me for help...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And here 's an edited for privacy transcription from Google Voice today : " Hi Alan , it 's gia Craig over at Northeastern collagen help topped and my computer is dead .
It 's definitely not working or managers on my phone 's working .
I checked the lines it does n't look like .
Anything 's Unplugged , but I 've pushed in any way you push the button to turn it on .
There 's no white that goes on movie then Maher of a machine starting .
It 's just absolutely dead and so could you do call me back and and come today .
I do have to run over to delivery of the office for a few minutes this morning and then but I did not half hour .
I might be at Colin 's desk and that is extension 251 .
If I 'm not at my own here and I 'm 253 .
Thanks a lot .
Bye bye. " Funny.. .
this is what I hear whenever a user asks me for help.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here's an edited for privacy transcription from Google Voice today: "Hi Alan, it's gia Craig over at Northeastern collagen help topped and my computer is dead.
It's definitely not working or managers on my phone's working.
I checked the lines it doesn't look like.
Anything's Unplugged, but I've pushed in any way you push the button to turn it on.
There's no white that goes on movie then Maher of a machine starting.
It's just absolutely dead and so could you do call me back and and come today.
I do have to run over to delivery of the office for a few minutes this morning and then but I did not half hour.
I might be at Colin's desk and that is extension 251.
If I'm not at my own here and I'm 253.
Thanks a lot.
Bye bye."Funny...
this is what I hear whenever a user asks me for help...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801387</id>
	<title>Google voice to speech is (relatively) crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255953000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been experimenting with the voicemail-to-text transcription services out there, and compared to both GotVoice and PhoneTag the quality of transcription from Google Voice is something of a bad joke.<br><br>I understand that currently it's free (as opposed to $10+/month from the commercial services), and I have hopes that it will improve, but "quite nice" seems like a heck of a stretch at this point.<br><br>Anecdotally, here's an edited for privacy transcription from PhoneTag: "Hi, Alan.  It's Nancy at Village Surgeons.  My number is 123-456-7890.  I'm following up on my e-mail that I sent you last week with regard to backup of our (quicken?) system here.  (Paul Oddlastname?) was, had a concern that it wasn't backing up.  So, I just kinda wants to touch base with you about that.  When you have a chance.  Give me a call.  Thank you.  Bye."<br><br>And here's an edited for privacy transcription from Google Voice today: "Hi Alan, it's gia Craig over at Northeastern collagen help topped and my computer is dead. It's definitely not working or managers on my phone's working. I checked the lines it doesn't look like. Anything's Unplugged, but I've pushed in any way you push the button to turn it on. There's no white that goes on movie then Maher of a machine starting. It's just absolutely dead and so could you do call me back and and come today. I do have to run over to delivery of the office for a few minutes this morning and then but I did not half hour. I might be at Colin's desk and that is extension 251. If I'm not at my own here and I'm 253. Thanks a lot. Bye bye."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been experimenting with the voicemail-to-text transcription services out there , and compared to both GotVoice and PhoneTag the quality of transcription from Google Voice is something of a bad joke.I understand that currently it 's free ( as opposed to $ 10 + /month from the commercial services ) , and I have hopes that it will improve , but " quite nice " seems like a heck of a stretch at this point.Anecdotally , here 's an edited for privacy transcription from PhoneTag : " Hi , Alan .
It 's Nancy at Village Surgeons .
My number is 123-456-7890 .
I 'm following up on my e-mail that I sent you last week with regard to backup of our ( quicken ?
) system here .
( Paul Oddlastname ?
) was , had a concern that it was n't backing up .
So , I just kinda wants to touch base with you about that .
When you have a chance .
Give me a call .
Thank you .
Bye. " And here 's an edited for privacy transcription from Google Voice today : " Hi Alan , it 's gia Craig over at Northeastern collagen help topped and my computer is dead .
It 's definitely not working or managers on my phone 's working .
I checked the lines it does n't look like .
Anything 's Unplugged , but I 've pushed in any way you push the button to turn it on .
There 's no white that goes on movie then Maher of a machine starting .
It 's just absolutely dead and so could you do call me back and and come today .
I do have to run over to delivery of the office for a few minutes this morning and then but I did not half hour .
I might be at Colin 's desk and that is extension 251 .
If I 'm not at my own here and I 'm 253 .
Thanks a lot .
Bye bye .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been experimenting with the voicemail-to-text transcription services out there, and compared to both GotVoice and PhoneTag the quality of transcription from Google Voice is something of a bad joke.I understand that currently it's free (as opposed to $10+/month from the commercial services), and I have hopes that it will improve, but "quite nice" seems like a heck of a stretch at this point.Anecdotally, here's an edited for privacy transcription from PhoneTag: "Hi, Alan.
It's Nancy at Village Surgeons.
My number is 123-456-7890.
I'm following up on my e-mail that I sent you last week with regard to backup of our (quicken?
) system here.
(Paul Oddlastname?
) was, had a concern that it wasn't backing up.
So, I just kinda wants to touch base with you about that.
When you have a chance.
Give me a call.
Thank you.
Bye."And here's an edited for privacy transcription from Google Voice today: "Hi Alan, it's gia Craig over at Northeastern collagen help topped and my computer is dead.
It's definitely not working or managers on my phone's working.
I checked the lines it doesn't look like.
Anything's Unplugged, but I've pushed in any way you push the button to turn it on.
There's no white that goes on movie then Maher of a machine starting.
It's just absolutely dead and so could you do call me back and and come today.
I do have to run over to delivery of the office for a few minutes this morning and then but I did not half hour.
I might be at Colin's desk and that is extension 251.
If I'm not at my own here and I'm 253.
Thanks a lot.
Bye bye.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801071</id>
	<title>Re:User action?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255951380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>It sounds like something that wouldn't happen if you used commodity PC hardware to set up your own voice mail system.  Sure, you could make a similar mistake, but it's less likely considering that no one is as interested in safeguarding your data and privacy as you are.  It's difficult to put a dollar amount on it, but maintaining control over your own data and systems is quite valuable all the same.  I think it's great that Google wants to make services like these available to people who want them, but I for one won't be jumping on that bandwagon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sounds like something that would n't happen if you used commodity PC hardware to set up your own voice mail system .
Sure , you could make a similar mistake , but it 's less likely considering that no one is as interested in safeguarding your data and privacy as you are .
It 's difficult to put a dollar amount on it , but maintaining control over your own data and systems is quite valuable all the same .
I think it 's great that Google wants to make services like these available to people who want them , but I for one wo n't be jumping on that bandwagon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sounds like something that wouldn't happen if you used commodity PC hardware to set up your own voice mail system.
Sure, you could make a similar mistake, but it's less likely considering that no one is as interested in safeguarding your data and privacy as you are.
It's difficult to put a dollar amount on it, but maintaining control over your own data and systems is quite valuable all the same.
I think it's great that Google wants to make services like these available to people who want them, but I for one won't be jumping on that bandwagon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29803485</id>
	<title>Re:If it's out there</title>
	<author>dubner</author>
	<datestamp>1255967100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If by "nice" you mean that it<br><a href="https://www.google.com/voice/fm/06974281305002571178/AHwOX\_BZv6FHmLoE8u1sr0JsFLsFUv2j\_ij1GTLU\_\_9K0x0ta3\_OuVxudk0T4oS90mMVyJKZnRrZSupdMLUW-pN92R09lEfFQz1RPTFlfhVm3ZtpOJ-DY2rmafTgzRU7c6uZ54SlgKXCF4ZXDAxDR9EsXiRYULexzA" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">confuses 'Donna office' with 'dumbass' and 'she'll tell welcome' with 'shut the hell up'</a> [google.com] then I agree.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If by " nice " you mean that itconfuses 'Donna office ' with 'dumbass ' and 'she 'll tell welcome ' with 'shut the hell up ' [ google.com ] then I agree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If by "nice" you mean that itconfuses 'Donna office' with 'dumbass' and 'she'll tell welcome' with 'shut the hell up' [google.com] then I agree.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800969</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801635</id>
	<title>Re:The Real Problem is ...</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1255954380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The real problem, IMO, is that Google Voice voicemails are world-readable to begin with.</p></div><p>I'm not really meaning to argue, but I believe the biggest part of that "real problem" is that a lot of users simply don't care about the security of their personal information.</p><p>Quite by accident, I discovered that the transcripts are open to the world not long after my brother got a Google Voice account. He was commenting (via email) on the funny misinterpretation of a message I'd left him - he sent me the text and  as chance would have it left the original link intact. When I clicked on it, I heard the message I'd left him! But when I told him about this glaring security problem (IMHO), he basically said "this isn't really a big deal".</p><p>Companies won't have much reason to pay real attention to security until a large percentage of their customer base forces them to pay real attention from the get-go.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem , IMO , is that Google Voice voicemails are world-readable to begin with.I 'm not really meaning to argue , but I believe the biggest part of that " real problem " is that a lot of users simply do n't care about the security of their personal information.Quite by accident , I discovered that the transcripts are open to the world not long after my brother got a Google Voice account .
He was commenting ( via email ) on the funny misinterpretation of a message I 'd left him - he sent me the text and as chance would have it left the original link intact .
When I clicked on it , I heard the message I 'd left him !
But when I told him about this glaring security problem ( IMHO ) , he basically said " this is n't really a big deal " .Companies wo n't have much reason to pay real attention to security until a large percentage of their customer base forces them to pay real attention from the get-go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem, IMO, is that Google Voice voicemails are world-readable to begin with.I'm not really meaning to argue, but I believe the biggest part of that "real problem" is that a lot of users simply don't care about the security of their personal information.Quite by accident, I discovered that the transcripts are open to the world not long after my brother got a Google Voice account.
He was commenting (via email) on the funny misinterpretation of a message I'd left him - he sent me the text and  as chance would have it left the original link intact.
When I clicked on it, I heard the message I'd left him!
But when I told him about this glaring security problem (IMHO), he basically said "this isn't really a big deal".Companies won't have much reason to pay real attention to security until a large percentage of their customer base forces them to pay real attention from the get-go.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29803101</id>
	<title>ehh</title>
	<author>cl0s</author>
	<datestamp>1255963980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand this is not necc Google's fault but their fix doesn't necc stop Yahoo or Bing from crawling it. I mean if you want to share your voicemail on your blog its like girls who post pictures wearing a bra and panties in the bathroom mirror on myspace, you can't be too mad when someone you didn't want to finds it.</p><p>I do agree they should make the voice mail completely private and only activate the URL from outside if specifically "shared". Funny because less than 10 minutes ago I setup my G1's voice mail to forward to Google Voice so I can use it as visual voice mail (works great by the way) -- didn't know this was going on though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand this is not necc Google 's fault but their fix does n't necc stop Yahoo or Bing from crawling it .
I mean if you want to share your voicemail on your blog its like girls who post pictures wearing a bra and panties in the bathroom mirror on myspace , you ca n't be too mad when someone you did n't want to finds it.I do agree they should make the voice mail completely private and only activate the URL from outside if specifically " shared " .
Funny because less than 10 minutes ago I setup my G1 's voice mail to forward to Google Voice so I can use it as visual voice mail ( works great by the way ) -- did n't know this was going on though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand this is not necc Google's fault but their fix doesn't necc stop Yahoo or Bing from crawling it.
I mean if you want to share your voicemail on your blog its like girls who post pictures wearing a bra and panties in the bathroom mirror on myspace, you can't be too mad when someone you didn't want to finds it.I do agree they should make the voice mail completely private and only activate the URL from outside if specifically "shared".
Funny because less than 10 minutes ago I setup my G1's voice mail to forward to Google Voice so I can use it as visual voice mail (works great by the way) -- didn't know this was going on though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801079</id>
	<title>Already explained by google, in TFA.</title>
	<author>gehrehmee</author>
	<datestamp>1255951380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could at least mention that the link you linked to has the express updated statement from google:</p><p>"Since the initial idea behind posting a voicemail, was precisely to share it with others, we did not restrict crawling of those messages that users post on the web, but we can certainly understand that users would want to make them public on their sites but not necessarily searchable directly outside of their own website. We made a change to prevent those to be crawled so only the site owner can decide to index them."</p><p>These are messages that people went out of their way to make public, via a URL with a hash. There's a question of whether there should have been a different type of authentication here, but this story is an alarmist knee-jerk reaction at best.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could at least mention that the link you linked to has the express updated statement from google : " Since the initial idea behind posting a voicemail , was precisely to share it with others , we did not restrict crawling of those messages that users post on the web , but we can certainly understand that users would want to make them public on their sites but not necessarily searchable directly outside of their own website .
We made a change to prevent those to be crawled so only the site owner can decide to index them .
" These are messages that people went out of their way to make public , via a URL with a hash .
There 's a question of whether there should have been a different type of authentication here , but this story is an alarmist knee-jerk reaction at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could at least mention that the link you linked to has the express updated statement from google:"Since the initial idea behind posting a voicemail, was precisely to share it with others, we did not restrict crawling of those messages that users post on the web, but we can certainly understand that users would want to make them public on their sites but not necessarily searchable directly outside of their own website.
We made a change to prevent those to be crawled so only the site owner can decide to index them.
"These are messages that people went out of their way to make public, via a URL with a hash.
There's a question of whether there should have been a different type of authentication here, but this story is an alarmist knee-jerk reaction at best.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801297</id>
	<title>data posted on the internet found on the internet!</title>
	<author>Kenja</author>
	<datestamp>1255952640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dont want data to be found online? Dont put it out there for people to find.<br> <br>

Total non-issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dont want data to be found online ?
Dont put it out there for people to find .
Total non-issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dont want data to be found online?
Dont put it out there for people to find.
Total non-issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800969</id>
	<title>If it's out there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255950840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like everything on the internet, if it's public, a web-spider will find it (eventually). But I'm seriously impressed by the speech-to-text engine Google uses, quite nice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like everything on the internet , if it 's public , a web-spider will find it ( eventually ) .
But I 'm seriously impressed by the speech-to-text engine Google uses , quite nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like everything on the internet, if it's public, a web-spider will find it (eventually).
But I'm seriously impressed by the speech-to-text engine Google uses, quite nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29804433</id>
	<title>This is suprising?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255977660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When are people going to learn that anything you store or use on a free public network "cloud" is free bait. This is why this type of thing is fail for corporate use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When are people going to learn that anything you store or use on a free public network " cloud " is free bait .
This is why this type of thing is fail for corporate use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When are people going to learn that anything you store or use on a free public network "cloud" is free bait.
This is why this type of thing is fail for corporate use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29802977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29802521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29802341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29802349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29803771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29802009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29804033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29803485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29806061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29803627
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29803847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29805471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29810787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_219248_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29803857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_219248.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29802521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800999
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_219248.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29803857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29803771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29804033
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_219248.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801079
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_219248.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29803831
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_219248.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29802009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801835
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29803627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801071
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29805471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_219248.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_219248.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_219248.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801061
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_219248.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800889
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_219248.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801957
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_219248.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29806061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29802977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29802349
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_219248.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29800969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801387
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29803847
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29810787
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29802341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29803485
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_219248.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_219248.29801777
</commentlist>
</conversation>
