<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_27_1833206</id>
	<title>UK Law Enforcement Is Against "3-Strikes"</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1256671920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Now that the UK is discussing plans for some form of <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/27/0016231&amp;tid=236">3-strikes regime</a> to discourage file-sharing, TechDirt reports that the fans of due process have picked up unlikely allies: the <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20091027/0254326689.shtml">law enforcement and spying establishments</a> fear that a 3-strikes policy would result in far more encryption on the Net, greatly complicating their jobs. <i>"Of course, they're not as concerned about due process and civil rights, as they are about making it more difficult to track down criminals online: 'Law enforcement groups, which include the Serious and Organized Crime Agency and the Metropolitan Police's e-crime unit, believe that more encryption will increase the costs and workload for those attempting to monitor internet traffic. ... A source involved in drafting the Bill said that the intelligence agencies, MI5 and MI6, had also voiced concerns about disconnection. "The spooks hate it," the source said.'"</i> The Times (UK) Online has <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6885923.ece">more details</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that the UK is discussing plans for some form of 3-strikes regime to discourage file-sharing , TechDirt reports that the fans of due process have picked up unlikely allies : the law enforcement and spying establishments fear that a 3-strikes policy would result in far more encryption on the Net , greatly complicating their jobs .
" Of course , they 're not as concerned about due process and civil rights , as they are about making it more difficult to track down criminals online : 'Law enforcement groups , which include the Serious and Organized Crime Agency and the Metropolitan Police 's e-crime unit , believe that more encryption will increase the costs and workload for those attempting to monitor internet traffic .
... A source involved in drafting the Bill said that the intelligence agencies , MI5 and MI6 , had also voiced concerns about disconnection .
" The spooks hate it , " the source said .
' " The Times ( UK ) Online has more details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that the UK is discussing plans for some form of 3-strikes regime to discourage file-sharing, TechDirt reports that the fans of due process have picked up unlikely allies: the law enforcement and spying establishments fear that a 3-strikes policy would result in far more encryption on the Net, greatly complicating their jobs.
"Of course, they're not as concerned about due process and civil rights, as they are about making it more difficult to track down criminals online: 'Law enforcement groups, which include the Serious and Organized Crime Agency and the Metropolitan Police's e-crime unit, believe that more encryption will increase the costs and workload for those attempting to monitor internet traffic.
... A source involved in drafting the Bill said that the intelligence agencies, MI5 and MI6, had also voiced concerns about disconnection.
"The spooks hate it," the source said.
'" The Times (UK) Online has more details.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888173</id>
	<title>Showtime!</title>
	<author>Dysphoric1</author>
	<datestamp>1256677140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time to break out the popcorn and watch the private sector fascists go to war with the government fascists.</p><p>Competition in the fascism market benefits everyone. I think we can pretty much all agree we don't want any monopolies here...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to break out the popcorn and watch the private sector fascists go to war with the government fascists.Competition in the fascism market benefits everyone .
I think we can pretty much all agree we do n't want any monopolies here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to break out the popcorn and watch the private sector fascists go to war with the government fascists.Competition in the fascism market benefits everyone.
I think we can pretty much all agree we don't want any monopolies here...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888429</id>
	<title>Backfire!</title>
	<author>TheCarp</author>
	<datestamp>1256634960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....and oops. I just showed this article to a friend who was resistant to using OTR to encrypt his IM communications, even though he had pidgin and could easily turn on OTR. Now he has seen the light and switched on OTR. Thanks UK Police!</p><p>-Steve</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....and oops .
I just showed this article to a friend who was resistant to using OTR to encrypt his IM communications , even though he had pidgin and could easily turn on OTR .
Now he has seen the light and switched on OTR .
Thanks UK Police ! -Steve</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....and oops.
I just showed this article to a friend who was resistant to using OTR to encrypt his IM communications, even though he had pidgin and could easily turn on OTR.
Now he has seen the light and switched on OTR.
Thanks UK Police!-Steve</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29889613</id>
	<title>Re:Law enforcement isn't a US sports game</title>
	<author>bitt3n</author>
	<datestamp>1256639640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Never really understood this "3 strikes and you're out" theory. Law enforcement is too complex to be modelled after the rules of a US sports game. Can somebody explain how this idiotic idea came about, the thinking behind it?</p><p>What next? You don't go to jail if you say "Simon says" before committing an offence? Police can't arrest you if you're not touching the ground when they catch up with you?</p></div><p>Actually, maybe it should be <em>more</em> closely modeled. They should have 'balls' in there too. Like, say you try to download a torrent of Iron Man, and it turns out to be dubbed into Swedish. If that happens 4 times, the MPAA has to send you a free movie of your choice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never really understood this " 3 strikes and you 're out " theory .
Law enforcement is too complex to be modelled after the rules of a US sports game .
Can somebody explain how this idiotic idea came about , the thinking behind it ? What next ?
You do n't go to jail if you say " Simon says " before committing an offence ?
Police ca n't arrest you if you 're not touching the ground when they catch up with you ? Actually , maybe it should be more closely modeled .
They should have 'balls ' in there too .
Like , say you try to download a torrent of Iron Man , and it turns out to be dubbed into Swedish .
If that happens 4 times , the MPAA has to send you a free movie of your choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never really understood this "3 strikes and you're out" theory.
Law enforcement is too complex to be modelled after the rules of a US sports game.
Can somebody explain how this idiotic idea came about, the thinking behind it?What next?
You don't go to jail if you say "Simon says" before committing an offence?
Police can't arrest you if you're not touching the ground when they catch up with you?Actually, maybe it should be more closely modeled.
They should have 'balls' in there too.
Like, say you try to download a torrent of Iron Man, and it turns out to be dubbed into Swedish.
If that happens 4 times, the MPAA has to send you a free movie of your choice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888343</id>
	<title>Re:Law enforcement isn't a US sports game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256634660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's nice because instead of using the Chewbacca defense I can use the foul ball defense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's nice because instead of using the Chewbacca defense I can use the foul ball defense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's nice because instead of using the Chewbacca defense I can use the foul ball defense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888267</id>
	<title>Re:Law enforcement isn't a US sports game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256634360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Never really understood this "3 strikes and you're out" theory. Law enforcement is too complex to be modelled after the rules of a US sports game. Can somebody explain how this idiotic idea came about, the thinking behind it?</p><p>What next? You don't go to jail if you say "Simon says" before committing an offence? Police can't arrest you if you're not touching the ground when they catch up with you?</p></div><p>Simple. It's not modeled after baseball. It's simply a method of curbing recidivism. Additional penalties on the second offense was deemed too harsh, four too light. Three offenses seemed to be the 'Goldilocks' number. And hey, call 'em "strikes" and it sounds catchy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never really understood this " 3 strikes and you 're out " theory .
Law enforcement is too complex to be modelled after the rules of a US sports game .
Can somebody explain how this idiotic idea came about , the thinking behind it ? What next ?
You do n't go to jail if you say " Simon says " before committing an offence ?
Police ca n't arrest you if you 're not touching the ground when they catch up with you ? Simple .
It 's not modeled after baseball .
It 's simply a method of curbing recidivism .
Additional penalties on the second offense was deemed too harsh , four too light .
Three offenses seemed to be the 'Goldilocks ' number .
And hey , call 'em " strikes " and it sounds catchy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never really understood this "3 strikes and you're out" theory.
Law enforcement is too complex to be modelled after the rules of a US sports game.
Can somebody explain how this idiotic idea came about, the thinking behind it?What next?
You don't go to jail if you say "Simon says" before committing an offence?
Police can't arrest you if you're not touching the ground when they catch up with you?Simple.
It's not modeled after baseball.
It's simply a method of curbing recidivism.
Additional penalties on the second offense was deemed too harsh, four too light.
Three offenses seemed to be the 'Goldilocks' number.
And hey, call 'em "strikes" and it sounds catchy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888725</id>
	<title>BIT Torrent BBC Nwesnight Report</title>
	<author>spacedoggy</author>
	<datestamp>1256636040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This blatent peice of BBC propaganda from a couple of years back demonises "so called BIT TORRENT FILE SHARING" for encouraging encryption and making illegal wire tapping of UK civilians' data and telephone communications more difficult for the CIA and MI5.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq2PK2W-vVI" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq2PK2W-vVI</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This blatent peice of BBC propaganda from a couple of years back demonises " so called BIT TORRENT FILE SHARING " for encouraging encryption and making illegal wire tapping of UK civilians ' data and telephone communications more difficult for the CIA and MI5 .
http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = dq2PK2W-vVI [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This blatent peice of BBC propaganda from a couple of years back demonises "so called BIT TORRENT FILE SHARING" for encouraging encryption and making illegal wire tapping of UK civilians' data and telephone communications more difficult for the CIA and MI5.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dq2PK2W-vVI [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888847</id>
	<title>Re:MI5 and MI6?</title>
	<author>Mendoksou</author>
	<datestamp>1256636520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, but MI6 was a Bond film.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but MI6 was a Bond film .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but MI6 was a Bond film.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888473</id>
	<title>Just remember...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256635260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Of course, they're not as concerned about due process and civil rights, as they are about making it more difficult to track down criminals online</p></div><p>The enemy of my enemy is <i>not</i> my friend, even when they aid me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , they 're not as concerned about due process and civil rights , as they are about making it more difficult to track down criminals onlineThe enemy of my enemy is not my friend , even when they aid me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, they're not as concerned about due process and civil rights, as they are about making it more difficult to track down criminals onlineThe enemy of my enemy is not my friend, even when they aid me.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29904303</id>
	<title>3 strikes now law enforfcement term</title>
	<author>leftie</author>
	<datestamp>1256733840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank the US right wingers who originally came up with the idea to lock up a person who is convicted of felony crimes three separate times for the rest of their lives as career criminals</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three\_strikes\_law" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three\_strikes\_law</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>It's created in the US what become now known as the prison-industrial complex.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank the US right wingers who originally came up with the idea to lock up a person who is convicted of felony crimes three separate times for the rest of their lives as career criminalshttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three \ _strikes \ _law [ wikipedia.org ] It 's created in the US what become now known as the prison-industrial complex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank the US right wingers who originally came up with the idea to lock up a person who is convicted of felony crimes three separate times for the rest of their lives as career criminalshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three\_strikes\_law [wikipedia.org]It's created in the US what become now known as the prison-industrial complex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888111</id>
	<title>Re:Soo... encryption isn't that useful to begin wi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256676840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Encryption requires the extra step of going to the hardware store and buying a $5 wrench.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Encryption requires the extra step of going to the hardware store and buying a $ 5 wrench .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Encryption requires the extra step of going to the hardware store and buying a $5 wrench.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29889447</id>
	<title>wilderness of mirrors</title>
	<author>DriveDog</author>
	<datestamp>1256639040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then that was necessary for them to do so that we'd think they couldn't crack it. Standard espionage novel fare-let the enemy catch you trying to steal their code machine so they think you need to steal their code machine because you can't crack their code otherwise...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then that was necessary for them to do so that we 'd think they could n't crack it .
Standard espionage novel fare-let the enemy catch you trying to steal their code machine so they think you need to steal their code machine because you ca n't crack their code otherwise.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then that was necessary for them to do so that we'd think they couldn't crack it.
Standard espionage novel fare-let the enemy catch you trying to steal their code machine so they think you need to steal their code machine because you can't crack their code otherwise...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29904457</id>
	<title>Re:Encrypt EVERYTHING (privacy advocate)</title>
	<author>leftie</author>
	<datestamp>1256734860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I sympathize, but the only thing that would make my boring life more grim is wasting the extra time one needs to spend to encrypt all the boring details of my boring life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sympathize , but the only thing that would make my boring life more grim is wasting the extra time one needs to spend to encrypt all the boring details of my boring life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sympathize, but the only thing that would make my boring life more grim is wasting the extra time one needs to spend to encrypt all the boring details of my boring life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887835</id>
	<title>LAWL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256675820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The <i>Serious and Organised Crime Agency</i>, as opposed to what, the <i>Laid-back and Disheveled Crime Buddies</i>?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Serious and Organised Crime Agency , as opposed to what , the Laid-back and Disheveled Crime Buddies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Serious and Organised Crime Agency, as opposed to what, the Laid-back and Disheveled Crime Buddies?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888331</id>
	<title>Re:Law enforcement isn't a US sports game</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1256634600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Law enforcement is too complex to be modelled after the rules of a US sports game. Can somebody explain how this idiotic idea came about, the thinking behind it?</p></div><p>
If you're a music industry executive who's incapable of rethinking the music industry's failing business model, which do you think is easier - steal an idea from a common past-time or come up with your own idea?<br> <br>
Given that music execs haven't come up with an original idea in decades, the answer should be obvious...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Law enforcement is too complex to be modelled after the rules of a US sports game .
Can somebody explain how this idiotic idea came about , the thinking behind it ?
If you 're a music industry executive who 's incapable of rethinking the music industry 's failing business model , which do you think is easier - steal an idea from a common past-time or come up with your own idea ?
Given that music execs have n't come up with an original idea in decades , the answer should be obvious.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Law enforcement is too complex to be modelled after the rules of a US sports game.
Can somebody explain how this idiotic idea came about, the thinking behind it?
If you're a music industry executive who's incapable of rethinking the music industry's failing business model, which do you think is easier - steal an idea from a common past-time or come up with your own idea?
Given that music execs haven't come up with an original idea in decades, the answer should be obvious...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29889027</id>
	<title>Re:Soo... encryption isn't that useful to begin wi</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1256637240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even keyboard logging isn't a shoe-in.  90\% of the time they're not also monitoring the MOUSE as well.  Some programs are now using on-screen keyboards for password entry to get around keyloggers.  You can also on many systems pair a key-file with your password.  The keyfile needn't necessarily stay on your computer if it's easily retrievable.</p><p>For example, you could use a source file from the first release of the Linux kernel as a keyfile. It's easily remembered, and easily retrieved from tons of locations on the net, yet incredibly hard to guess.</p><p>You can also keep your encrypted media hidden in the real world.  Take those little cell phone memory cards for example.  They're like 1 cm squared and wafer thin, but can hold gigabytes of information.  Go to your front door, remove the top hinge, and cut a tiny notch in the door behind the hinge.  Stick your card there and then replace the hinge covering your little notch.  Or open your VCR or game system and tape the thing on the inside of the device before reassembling.  Unless they see you do it, almost no one will find that.  Or worst case scenario, get a wooden box, put your card in a zip loc bag (or really several of them), and just bury the thing somewhere that you know isn't likely to be searched.  Having the key is no good if they can't find the lock.</p><p>Also is the mere fact that not everything you encrypt is stuff you'll be accessing too often.  I have encrypted containers that I haven't accessed in years.  They'd be keylogging a LONG time before they caught me typing my password.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even keyboard logging is n't a shoe-in .
90 \ % of the time they 're not also monitoring the MOUSE as well .
Some programs are now using on-screen keyboards for password entry to get around keyloggers .
You can also on many systems pair a key-file with your password .
The keyfile need n't necessarily stay on your computer if it 's easily retrievable.For example , you could use a source file from the first release of the Linux kernel as a keyfile .
It 's easily remembered , and easily retrieved from tons of locations on the net , yet incredibly hard to guess.You can also keep your encrypted media hidden in the real world .
Take those little cell phone memory cards for example .
They 're like 1 cm squared and wafer thin , but can hold gigabytes of information .
Go to your front door , remove the top hinge , and cut a tiny notch in the door behind the hinge .
Stick your card there and then replace the hinge covering your little notch .
Or open your VCR or game system and tape the thing on the inside of the device before reassembling .
Unless they see you do it , almost no one will find that .
Or worst case scenario , get a wooden box , put your card in a zip loc bag ( or really several of them ) , and just bury the thing somewhere that you know is n't likely to be searched .
Having the key is no good if they ca n't find the lock.Also is the mere fact that not everything you encrypt is stuff you 'll be accessing too often .
I have encrypted containers that I have n't accessed in years .
They 'd be keylogging a LONG time before they caught me typing my password .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even keyboard logging isn't a shoe-in.
90\% of the time they're not also monitoring the MOUSE as well.
Some programs are now using on-screen keyboards for password entry to get around keyloggers.
You can also on many systems pair a key-file with your password.
The keyfile needn't necessarily stay on your computer if it's easily retrievable.For example, you could use a source file from the first release of the Linux kernel as a keyfile.
It's easily remembered, and easily retrieved from tons of locations on the net, yet incredibly hard to guess.You can also keep your encrypted media hidden in the real world.
Take those little cell phone memory cards for example.
They're like 1 cm squared and wafer thin, but can hold gigabytes of information.
Go to your front door, remove the top hinge, and cut a tiny notch in the door behind the hinge.
Stick your card there and then replace the hinge covering your little notch.
Or open your VCR or game system and tape the thing on the inside of the device before reassembling.
Unless they see you do it, almost no one will find that.
Or worst case scenario, get a wooden box, put your card in a zip loc bag (or really several of them), and just bury the thing somewhere that you know isn't likely to be searched.
Having the key is no good if they can't find the lock.Also is the mere fact that not everything you encrypt is stuff you'll be accessing too often.
I have encrypted containers that I haven't accessed in years.
They'd be keylogging a LONG time before they caught me typing my password.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888713</id>
	<title>Re:Law enforcement isn't a US sports game</title>
	<author>wayland</author>
	<datestamp>1256636040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>The impression I've gotten is that some judges (the ones I've heard about have been left-leaning) are too sympathetic to the criminals, and say things like "Well, yes, he did *murder* someone, but he's just a big lovable puppy" (ok, I exaggerate<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) ).&nbsp; This was the legislator's attempt to say "While we don't want to take things out of the hands of judges completely, there's a certain point where people should just be locked up".<br><br>HTH,</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>The impression I 've gotten is that some judges ( the ones I 've heard about have been left-leaning ) are too sympathetic to the criminals , and say things like " Well , yes , he did * murder * someone , but he 's just a big lovable puppy " ( ok , I exaggerate : ) ) .   This was the legislator 's attempt to say " While we do n't want to take things out of the hands of judges completely , there 's a certain point where people should just be locked up " .HTH,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The impression I've gotten is that some judges (the ones I've heard about have been left-leaning) are too sympathetic to the criminals, and say things like "Well, yes, he did *murder* someone, but he's just a big lovable puppy" (ok, I exaggerate :) ).  This was the legislator's attempt to say "While we don't want to take things out of the hands of judges completely, there's a certain point where people should just be locked up".HTH,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888021</id>
	<title>Soo... encryption isn't that useful to begin with?</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1256676540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Law enforcement groups, which include the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (Soca) and the Metropolitan Police's e-crime unit, believe that more encryption will increase the costs and workload for those attempting to monitor internet traffic. One official said: "It will make prosecution harder because it increases the workload significantly."</p></div><p>One would think that encryption would stop them in their tracks, not just "increase the costs and workload"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Law enforcement groups , which include the Serious and Organised Crime Agency ( Soca ) and the Metropolitan Police 's e-crime unit , believe that more encryption will increase the costs and workload for those attempting to monitor internet traffic .
One official said : " It will make prosecution harder because it increases the workload significantly .
" One would think that encryption would stop them in their tracks , not just " increase the costs and workload "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Law enforcement groups, which include the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (Soca) and the Metropolitan Police's e-crime unit, believe that more encryption will increase the costs and workload for those attempting to monitor internet traffic.
One official said: "It will make prosecution harder because it increases the workload significantly.
"One would think that encryption would stop them in their tracks, not just "increase the costs and workload"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888157</id>
	<title>Anonymity, not encryption is their real concern</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256677080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd hazard a guess that the real issue these agencies have is about increased use of anonymous communication networks such as Tor rather than just "encryption" of the content. It's almost a given that widespread adoption of Tor will have two important effects: (1) there will be larger numbers of relay or exit nodes in the network - at present it is suspected that intelligence agencies control a large number of the exit nodes (and possibly relay nodes too) in the network; and (2) greater traffic through the network will make it significantly harder to perform timing attacks on entry and exit from the mix network to correlate traffic and thus break its anonymity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd hazard a guess that the real issue these agencies have is about increased use of anonymous communication networks such as Tor rather than just " encryption " of the content .
It 's almost a given that widespread adoption of Tor will have two important effects : ( 1 ) there will be larger numbers of relay or exit nodes in the network - at present it is suspected that intelligence agencies control a large number of the exit nodes ( and possibly relay nodes too ) in the network ; and ( 2 ) greater traffic through the network will make it significantly harder to perform timing attacks on entry and exit from the mix network to correlate traffic and thus break its anonymity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd hazard a guess that the real issue these agencies have is about increased use of anonymous communication networks such as Tor rather than just "encryption" of the content.
It's almost a given that widespread adoption of Tor will have two important effects: (1) there will be larger numbers of relay or exit nodes in the network - at present it is suspected that intelligence agencies control a large number of the exit nodes (and possibly relay nodes too) in the network; and (2) greater traffic through the network will make it significantly harder to perform timing attacks on entry and exit from the mix network to correlate traffic and thus break its anonymity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888083</id>
	<title>Re:Soo... encryption isn't that useful to begin wi</title>
	<author>jammindice</author>
	<datestamp>1256676780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Law enforcement groups, which include the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (Soca) and the Metropolitan Police's e-crime unit, believe that more encryption will increase the costs and workload for those attempting to monitor internet traffic. One official said: "It will make prosecution harder because it increases the workload significantly."</p></div><p>One would think that encryption would stop them in their tracks, not just "increase the costs and workload"</p></div><p>Those increased costs and workload are for actually doing "real" police work instead</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Law enforcement groups , which include the Serious and Organised Crime Agency ( Soca ) and the Metropolitan Police 's e-crime unit , believe that more encryption will increase the costs and workload for those attempting to monitor internet traffic .
One official said : " It will make prosecution harder because it increases the workload significantly .
" One would think that encryption would stop them in their tracks , not just " increase the costs and workload " Those increased costs and workload are for actually doing " real " police work instead</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Law enforcement groups, which include the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (Soca) and the Metropolitan Police's e-crime unit, believe that more encryption will increase the costs and workload for those attempting to monitor internet traffic.
One official said: "It will make prosecution harder because it increases the workload significantly.
"One would think that encryption would stop them in their tracks, not just "increase the costs and workload"Those increased costs and workload are for actually doing "real" police work instead
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29899711</id>
	<title>Re:Soo... encryption isn't that useful to begin wi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256754720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Costs come from the UK Stasi banging on your door, beating you with a 5 pound wrench until you give up your passwords.</p><p>Dont forget, under UK law, you have no right to remain silent when asked for passwords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Costs come from the UK Stasi banging on your door , beating you with a 5 pound wrench until you give up your passwords.Dont forget , under UK law , you have no right to remain silent when asked for passwords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Costs come from the UK Stasi banging on your door, beating you with a 5 pound wrench until you give up your passwords.Dont forget, under UK law, you have no right to remain silent when asked for passwords.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888263</id>
	<title>Re:Law enforcement isn't a US sports game</title>
	<author>stms</author>
	<datestamp>1256634360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot get out of jail free cards. Those are defiantly next.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot get out of jail free cards .
Those are defiantly next .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot get out of jail free cards.
Those are defiantly next.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29890249</id>
	<title>Applies to Internet Filtering Too</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1256642160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is one reason I think all these countries that are busily setting up mandatory internet filtering are completely defeating themselves.</p><p>Right now, 95\% of people accessing child porn and the like just post on open unencrypted connections.  Stupid - but there you go.   Once the connection is filtered and only encrypted connections even work any more they will all become educated about encryption and anonymization sufficient to bypass the filters and 99\% of the intelligence sources that are now helping to track down these criminals will go dark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one reason I think all these countries that are busily setting up mandatory internet filtering are completely defeating themselves.Right now , 95 \ % of people accessing child porn and the like just post on open unencrypted connections .
Stupid - but there you go .
Once the connection is filtered and only encrypted connections even work any more they will all become educated about encryption and anonymization sufficient to bypass the filters and 99 \ % of the intelligence sources that are now helping to track down these criminals will go dark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one reason I think all these countries that are busily setting up mandatory internet filtering are completely defeating themselves.Right now, 95\% of people accessing child porn and the like just post on open unencrypted connections.
Stupid - but there you go.
Once the connection is filtered and only encrypted connections even work any more they will all become educated about encryption and anonymization sufficient to bypass the filters and 99\% of the intelligence sources that are now helping to track down these criminals will go dark.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29889249</id>
	<title>HAHAHAHAHAHA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256638260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>best fucking slashdot comment in a long time</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>best fucking slashdot comment in a long time</tokentext>
<sentencetext>best fucking slashdot comment in a long time</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888535</id>
	<title>Encrypt EVERYTHING (privacy advocate)</title>
	<author>mrnick</author>
	<datestamp>1256635560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a privacy advocate I recommend that, whenever possible, one should encrypt everything regardless of the sensitivity of the particular data.</p><p>This will effectively keep law enforcement from tagging encrypted network traffic as being suspicious because encrypted network traffic will become the norm.</p><p>How will the police track down dangerous criminals using the Internet you may ask?  My answer would be who cares?  In my book criminals have just as much right to privacy as do any law abiding citizen.  Plus more law abiding citizens will have their right to privacy violated in the pursuit of criminals than do the actual criminals.</p><p>Benjamin Franklin said it best when he wrote "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."</p><p>Nick Powers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a privacy advocate I recommend that , whenever possible , one should encrypt everything regardless of the sensitivity of the particular data.This will effectively keep law enforcement from tagging encrypted network traffic as being suspicious because encrypted network traffic will become the norm.How will the police track down dangerous criminals using the Internet you may ask ?
My answer would be who cares ?
In my book criminals have just as much right to privacy as do any law abiding citizen .
Plus more law abiding citizens will have their right to privacy violated in the pursuit of criminals than do the actual criminals.Benjamin Franklin said it best when he wrote " Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety , deserve neither Liberty nor Safety .
" Nick Powers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a privacy advocate I recommend that, whenever possible, one should encrypt everything regardless of the sensitivity of the particular data.This will effectively keep law enforcement from tagging encrypted network traffic as being suspicious because encrypted network traffic will become the norm.How will the police track down dangerous criminals using the Internet you may ask?
My answer would be who cares?
In my book criminals have just as much right to privacy as do any law abiding citizen.
Plus more law abiding citizens will have their right to privacy violated in the pursuit of criminals than do the actual criminals.Benjamin Franklin said it best when he wrote "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
"Nick Powers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887829</id>
	<title>Of course...</title>
	<author>click2005</author>
	<datestamp>1256675760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They dont want people to have any excuse to use encryption other than if you've got something to hide.</p><p>Besides.. linking terrorists to filesharers is a stretch despite how much easier it would make the UK RIAA's job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They dont want people to have any excuse to use encryption other than if you 've got something to hide.Besides.. linking terrorists to filesharers is a stretch despite how much easier it would make the UK RIAA 's job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They dont want people to have any excuse to use encryption other than if you've got something to hide.Besides.. linking terrorists to filesharers is a stretch despite how much easier it would make the UK RIAA's job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29894435</id>
	<title>Re:Law enforcement isn't a US sports game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256724420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I think the notion is that if you have committed 3 crimes of a certain level, Felonies for example, you are likely to just be an habitual criminal and be locked up permanently for the good of society.</i> </p><p>I really have to wonder where this all came from. The "three strikes" language has been around only since the 90s. I remember, as a kid in the 40s and 50s, commonly hearing about "three-time losers", who were supposed to get life with no possibility of parole. Maybe it was only a federal crime thing back then and has only recently come into state laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the notion is that if you have committed 3 crimes of a certain level , Felonies for example , you are likely to just be an habitual criminal and be locked up permanently for the good of society .
I really have to wonder where this all came from .
The " three strikes " language has been around only since the 90s .
I remember , as a kid in the 40s and 50s , commonly hearing about " three-time losers " , who were supposed to get life with no possibility of parole .
Maybe it was only a federal crime thing back then and has only recently come into state laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the notion is that if you have committed 3 crimes of a certain level, Felonies for example, you are likely to just be an habitual criminal and be locked up permanently for the good of society.
I really have to wonder where this all came from.
The "three strikes" language has been around only since the 90s.
I remember, as a kid in the 40s and 50s, commonly hearing about "three-time losers", who were supposed to get life with no possibility of parole.
Maybe it was only a federal crime thing back then and has only recently come into state laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29890077</id>
	<title>Re:Reassuring</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1256641380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe that's what they want you to think.  You *have* read Cryptonomicon, haven't you?  Sometimes having the information can be more of a pain than not having it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe that 's what they want you to think .
You * have * read Cryptonomicon , have n't you ?
Sometimes having the information can be more of a pain than not having it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe that's what they want you to think.
You *have* read Cryptonomicon, haven't you?
Sometimes having the information can be more of a pain than not having it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29890759</id>
	<title>Re:Law enforcement isn't a US sports game</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1256644380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; What next? You don't go to jail if you say "Simon says" before committing an offence?</p><p>Close - I believe the phrase is `I have diplomatic immunity`.  Only works for the elite, though - you have to have been a public school, have rich parents etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What next ?
You do n't go to jail if you say " Simon says " before committing an offence ? Close - I believe the phrase is ` I have diplomatic immunity ` .
Only works for the elite , though - you have to have been a public school , have rich parents etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; What next?
You don't go to jail if you say "Simon says" before committing an offence?Close - I believe the phrase is `I have diplomatic immunity`.
Only works for the elite, though - you have to have been a public school, have rich parents etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888397</id>
	<title>Ha Ha</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256634840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The cops pirate MP3....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The cops pirate MP3... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cops pirate MP3....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888941</id>
	<title>Fear is right</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256636940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can see now, when HADOPI in France is active, really \_massive\_ movement French to anonymouse  and encrypted networks like i2p2, tor, freenet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can see now , when HADOPI in France is active , really \ _massive \ _ movement French to anonymouse and encrypted networks like i2p2 , tor , freenet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can see now, when HADOPI in France is active, really \_massive\_ movement French to anonymouse  and encrypted networks like i2p2, tor, freenet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29889191</id>
	<title>Re:Law enforcement isn't a US sports game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256637960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Never really understood this "3 strikes and you're out" theory.</p></div><p>I was actually hoping someone would craft a turn of phrase for the UK, something to do with wickets, perhaps...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never really understood this " 3 strikes and you 're out " theory.I was actually hoping someone would craft a turn of phrase for the UK , something to do with wickets , perhaps.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never really understood this "3 strikes and you're out" theory.I was actually hoping someone would craft a turn of phrase for the UK, something to do with wickets, perhaps...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887933</id>
	<title>wat</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256676180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fantastic agency name. They are serious and organized about crime! Yeah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fantastic agency name .
They are serious and organized about crime !
Yeah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fantastic agency name.
They are serious and organized about crime!
Yeah!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888005</id>
	<title>Your First Premis Is WRONG</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256676480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is NO law enforcement in the United Kingdom.<br>However, there is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17pUBYESQBk" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Fascism</a> [youtube.com].</p><p>Yours In Novorossiysk,<br>K. Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is NO law enforcement in the United Kingdom.However , there is Fascism [ youtube.com ] .Yours In Novorossiysk,K .
Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is NO law enforcement in the United Kingdom.However, there is Fascism [youtube.com].Yours In Novorossiysk,K.
Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29890779</id>
	<title>more like "devestating to our case"</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1256644500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> 'Law enforcement groups, which include the Serious and Organized Crime Agency and the Metropolitan Police's e-crime unit, believe that more encryption will increase the costs and workload for those attempting to monitor internet traffic.</p></div></blockquote><p>I like this. In reality, properly-implemented encryption will <i>completely prevent</i> even the most well-funded government agency from monitoring your Internet traffic. But Police and Three Letter Agencies would never admit as much in a press release. Instead, encryption just "increases their costs and workload." Feh.</p><p>I think one of the reasons that the average person doesn't care enough about encryption to use it is because they have no idea how effective it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Law enforcement groups , which include the Serious and Organized Crime Agency and the Metropolitan Police 's e-crime unit , believe that more encryption will increase the costs and workload for those attempting to monitor internet traffic.I like this .
In reality , properly-implemented encryption will completely prevent even the most well-funded government agency from monitoring your Internet traffic .
But Police and Three Letter Agencies would never admit as much in a press release .
Instead , encryption just " increases their costs and workload .
" Feh.I think one of the reasons that the average person does n't care enough about encryption to use it is because they have no idea how effective it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'Law enforcement groups, which include the Serious and Organized Crime Agency and the Metropolitan Police's e-crime unit, believe that more encryption will increase the costs and workload for those attempting to monitor internet traffic.I like this.
In reality, properly-implemented encryption will completely prevent even the most well-funded government agency from monitoring your Internet traffic.
But Police and Three Letter Agencies would never admit as much in a press release.
Instead, encryption just "increases their costs and workload.
" Feh.I think one of the reasons that the average person doesn't care enough about encryption to use it is because they have no idea how effective it is.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888117</id>
	<title>Re:Law enforcement isn't a US sports game</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1256676900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They probably thought that a three strikes rule would be easier for people to remember.  It's a rule that isn't based on justice but intimidation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They probably thought that a three strikes rule would be easier for people to remember .
It 's a rule that is n't based on justice but intimidation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They probably thought that a three strikes rule would be easier for people to remember.
It's a rule that isn't based on justice but intimidation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887827</id>
	<title>3 Strikes is Better than...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256675760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>3 Strikes is better than 3 niggers wasting time on the corner.</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 Strikes is better than 3 niggers wasting time on the corner .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3 Strikes is better than 3 niggers wasting time on the corner.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888257</id>
	<title>Re:Law enforcement isn't a US sports game</title>
	<author>cs668</author>
	<datestamp>1256634300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the notion is that if you have committed 3 crimes of a certain level, Felonies for example, you are likely to just be an habitual criminal and be locked up permanently for the good of society.</p><p>Not saying it's right or wrong, just explaining were the idea came from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the notion is that if you have committed 3 crimes of a certain level , Felonies for example , you are likely to just be an habitual criminal and be locked up permanently for the good of society.Not saying it 's right or wrong , just explaining were the idea came from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the notion is that if you have committed 3 crimes of a certain level, Felonies for example, you are likely to just be an habitual criminal and be locked up permanently for the good of society.Not saying it's right or wrong, just explaining were the idea came from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29895477</id>
	<title>Re:Law enforcement isn't a US sports game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256736060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not all pirates receive the same treatment:</p><p>GROUPAMA was caught in a <b>software PIRACY case of $200m</b> and has made an unofficial affidavit (claiming that it was not guilty) to divert Police investigations from the evidences officially collected one month ago -<i>at a different office</i>.</p><p>In its affidavit, <b>GROUPAMA argued that bank secrecy entitled it to limit the scope of Police investigations</b> to a building that was not the place where evidences about the infraction were officially collected.</p><p>After the fraud was discovered and denounced by the victim, as GROUPAMA managed to have the <b>General Prosecutor of Paris</b> to state that Police was 'right' to ignore the criminal file and focus only on the irrelevant information provided by GROUPAMA itself, there is room for serious doubts in the way that affair was conducted.</p><p>As a matter of facts, FINAMA and GROUPAMA have reported false information to the markets regarding their own accounts (where the fraud describbed below has never been reported).</p><p>This unfortunate event is more than likely to compromize the confidence ratings of French (bank and insurance) regulated markets on the proven basis that the numbers cannot be trusted.</p><p>All the details, including the General Prosecutor reply, the BEFTI investigation file and the unofficial affidavit cooked by GROUPAMA have been made publicly available:</p><p>http://remoteanything.com/archives/groupama.pdf</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not all pirates receive the same treatment : GROUPAMA was caught in a software PIRACY case of $ 200m and has made an unofficial affidavit ( claiming that it was not guilty ) to divert Police investigations from the evidences officially collected one month ago -at a different office.In its affidavit , GROUPAMA argued that bank secrecy entitled it to limit the scope of Police investigations to a building that was not the place where evidences about the infraction were officially collected.After the fraud was discovered and denounced by the victim , as GROUPAMA managed to have the General Prosecutor of Paris to state that Police was 'right ' to ignore the criminal file and focus only on the irrelevant information provided by GROUPAMA itself , there is room for serious doubts in the way that affair was conducted.As a matter of facts , FINAMA and GROUPAMA have reported false information to the markets regarding their own accounts ( where the fraud describbed below has never been reported ) .This unfortunate event is more than likely to compromize the confidence ratings of French ( bank and insurance ) regulated markets on the proven basis that the numbers can not be trusted.All the details , including the General Prosecutor reply , the BEFTI investigation file and the unofficial affidavit cooked by GROUPAMA have been made publicly available : http : //remoteanything.com/archives/groupama.pdf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not all pirates receive the same treatment:GROUPAMA was caught in a software PIRACY case of $200m and has made an unofficial affidavit (claiming that it was not guilty) to divert Police investigations from the evidences officially collected one month ago -at a different office.In its affidavit, GROUPAMA argued that bank secrecy entitled it to limit the scope of Police investigations to a building that was not the place where evidences about the infraction were officially collected.After the fraud was discovered and denounced by the victim, as GROUPAMA managed to have the General Prosecutor of Paris to state that Police was 'right' to ignore the criminal file and focus only on the irrelevant information provided by GROUPAMA itself, there is room for serious doubts in the way that affair was conducted.As a matter of facts, FINAMA and GROUPAMA have reported false information to the markets regarding their own accounts (where the fraud describbed below has never been reported).This unfortunate event is more than likely to compromize the confidence ratings of French (bank and insurance) regulated markets on the proven basis that the numbers cannot be trusted.All the details, including the General Prosecutor reply, the BEFTI investigation file and the unofficial affidavit cooked by GROUPAMA have been made publicly available:http://remoteanything.com/archives/groupama.pdf</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888927</id>
	<title>unintended side effects</title>
	<author>DriveDog</author>
	<datestamp>1256636880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would certainly expect a side effect of increased **AA-related harassment to be increased use of encryption and anonymizers. My expectation keeps my blood pressure down. Every time I get upset about more ridiculous **AA junk, I consider the probable outcome and how this is all probably a good thing in the long run. While hiding from **AAs, people increase their privacy and make it more difficult for anyone else to eavesdrop at the same time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would certainly expect a side effect of increased * * AA-related harassment to be increased use of encryption and anonymizers .
My expectation keeps my blood pressure down .
Every time I get upset about more ridiculous * * AA junk , I consider the probable outcome and how this is all probably a good thing in the long run .
While hiding from * * AAs , people increase their privacy and make it more difficult for anyone else to eavesdrop at the same time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would certainly expect a side effect of increased **AA-related harassment to be increased use of encryption and anonymizers.
My expectation keeps my blood pressure down.
Every time I get upset about more ridiculous **AA junk, I consider the probable outcome and how this is all probably a good thing in the long run.
While hiding from **AAs, people increase their privacy and make it more difficult for anyone else to eavesdrop at the same time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887951</id>
	<title>possible reason...</title>
	<author>apodyopsis</author>
	<datestamp>1256676300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing that one possible reason is whilst encryption is moderately rare - then they might assume that any encryption means a greater chance of something to hide and hence they can focus on it.</p><p>And of course that unencrypted stuff is easier to track though less immediately suspicious.</p><p>Anybody work in forensics and can give us an insider viewpoint?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing that one possible reason is whilst encryption is moderately rare - then they might assume that any encryption means a greater chance of something to hide and hence they can focus on it.And of course that unencrypted stuff is easier to track though less immediately suspicious.Anybody work in forensics and can give us an insider viewpoint ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing that one possible reason is whilst encryption is moderately rare - then they might assume that any encryption means a greater chance of something to hide and hence they can focus on it.And of course that unencrypted stuff is easier to track though less immediately suspicious.Anybody work in forensics and can give us an insider viewpoint?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887787</id>
	<title>UK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256675580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all the news about UK i'm surprised to read they've actually considered whats good for people.</p><p>Good job and continue that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all the news about UK i 'm surprised to read they 've actually considered whats good for people.Good job and continue that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all the news about UK i'm surprised to read they've actually considered whats good for people.Good job and continue that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888381</id>
	<title>Re:Law enforcement isn't a US sports game</title>
	<author>Experiment 626</author>
	<datestamp>1256634780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In some US jurisdictions, being convicted of three felony offenses raises the penalty to life imprisonment, as by this point supporters argue that the criminal has repeatedly not rehabilitated and just keeps on committing more crimes.  Music executives apparently want something analogous for punishing intellectual property "criminals".  A noteworthy difference between the situations, however, is that in the criminal justice case, the penalty kicks in after three felony convictions in a court of law, whereas most versions of the Internet banishment proposal only require multiple accusations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In some US jurisdictions , being convicted of three felony offenses raises the penalty to life imprisonment , as by this point supporters argue that the criminal has repeatedly not rehabilitated and just keeps on committing more crimes .
Music executives apparently want something analogous for punishing intellectual property " criminals " .
A noteworthy difference between the situations , however , is that in the criminal justice case , the penalty kicks in after three felony convictions in a court of law , whereas most versions of the Internet banishment proposal only require multiple accusations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In some US jurisdictions, being convicted of three felony offenses raises the penalty to life imprisonment, as by this point supporters argue that the criminal has repeatedly not rehabilitated and just keeps on committing more crimes.
Music executives apparently want something analogous for punishing intellectual property "criminals".
A noteworthy difference between the situations, however, is that in the criminal justice case, the penalty kicks in after three felony convictions in a court of law, whereas most versions of the Internet banishment proposal only require multiple accusations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29894395</id>
	<title>Re:Law enforcement isn't a US sports game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256723880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Can somebody explain how this idiotic idea came about, the thinking behind it?</i> </p><p>It's similar to the "zero tolerance" theory of law enforcement. Zero tolerance is just a coward's way of evading responsibility -- no need for thought or nuance -- just immediate punishment without regard to any collateral damage. It leads to maniacal shit like the recent case of the 13 yo girl strip-searched by school administrators when accused (falsely) by a third party of giving drugs to another girl. Frankly, the minimum punishment for any authority figure involved should be inclusion on a sex offenders list, with consequent firing and never being allowed any future job involving contact with minors.</p><p>Three strikes is the same. You can damned well bet there will be little actual court involvement -- mostly just accusations by **AA types.</p><p>As info, I believe the first three strikes conviction in California involved a mentally deficient kid who had a couple of offenses, maybe not necessarily involving a gun. Part of his parole included not ever again possessing a firearm.</p><p>In any case, in the course of a parole officer visit, he was found to have a revolver hanging from his bedpost in a holster and belt. The gun was old, rusted-out and well beyond the possibility of ever being made fireable again. It was no more of a gun than a common hammer would have been. Tough shit -- that qualified as a "third strike".</p><p>In another case, two of the three "violent strikes" consisted of a guy going into a video store and rather boldly stealing half a dozen videotapes. Apparently he said some gruff things to the proprietor in the process, hence the "violence". After putting the tapes in his car, he went back in and did the same with another half dozen tapes. The swine-fucking prosecutors charged the two sequential events, which occurred within a few minutes of each other, as separate "violent crimes" which, added to a prior, added up to three.</p><p>Thus works our majestic justice system -- the envy of the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can somebody explain how this idiotic idea came about , the thinking behind it ?
It 's similar to the " zero tolerance " theory of law enforcement .
Zero tolerance is just a coward 's way of evading responsibility -- no need for thought or nuance -- just immediate punishment without regard to any collateral damage .
It leads to maniacal shit like the recent case of the 13 yo girl strip-searched by school administrators when accused ( falsely ) by a third party of giving drugs to another girl .
Frankly , the minimum punishment for any authority figure involved should be inclusion on a sex offenders list , with consequent firing and never being allowed any future job involving contact with minors.Three strikes is the same .
You can damned well bet there will be little actual court involvement -- mostly just accusations by * * AA types.As info , I believe the first three strikes conviction in California involved a mentally deficient kid who had a couple of offenses , maybe not necessarily involving a gun .
Part of his parole included not ever again possessing a firearm.In any case , in the course of a parole officer visit , he was found to have a revolver hanging from his bedpost in a holster and belt .
The gun was old , rusted-out and well beyond the possibility of ever being made fireable again .
It was no more of a gun than a common hammer would have been .
Tough shit -- that qualified as a " third strike " .In another case , two of the three " violent strikes " consisted of a guy going into a video store and rather boldly stealing half a dozen videotapes .
Apparently he said some gruff things to the proprietor in the process , hence the " violence " .
After putting the tapes in his car , he went back in and did the same with another half dozen tapes .
The swine-fucking prosecutors charged the two sequential events , which occurred within a few minutes of each other , as separate " violent crimes " which , added to a prior , added up to three.Thus works our majestic justice system -- the envy of the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can somebody explain how this idiotic idea came about, the thinking behind it?
It's similar to the "zero tolerance" theory of law enforcement.
Zero tolerance is just a coward's way of evading responsibility -- no need for thought or nuance -- just immediate punishment without regard to any collateral damage.
It leads to maniacal shit like the recent case of the 13 yo girl strip-searched by school administrators when accused (falsely) by a third party of giving drugs to another girl.
Frankly, the minimum punishment for any authority figure involved should be inclusion on a sex offenders list, with consequent firing and never being allowed any future job involving contact with minors.Three strikes is the same.
You can damned well bet there will be little actual court involvement -- mostly just accusations by **AA types.As info, I believe the first three strikes conviction in California involved a mentally deficient kid who had a couple of offenses, maybe not necessarily involving a gun.
Part of his parole included not ever again possessing a firearm.In any case, in the course of a parole officer visit, he was found to have a revolver hanging from his bedpost in a holster and belt.
The gun was old, rusted-out and well beyond the possibility of ever being made fireable again.
It was no more of a gun than a common hammer would have been.
Tough shit -- that qualified as a "third strike".In another case, two of the three "violent strikes" consisted of a guy going into a video store and rather boldly stealing half a dozen videotapes.
Apparently he said some gruff things to the proprietor in the process, hence the "violence".
After putting the tapes in his car, he went back in and did the same with another half dozen tapes.
The swine-fucking prosecutors charged the two sequential events, which occurred within a few minutes of each other, as separate "violent crimes" which, added to a prior, added up to three.Thus works our majestic justice system -- the envy of the world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888149</id>
	<title>beware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256677020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is actually a precursor to demands to regulate encryption, not an attempt to stop a 3 strikes law.</p><p>UK civil "service" hell is the compromise created by pleasing as many special interests as possible, except the interests of the individual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is actually a precursor to demands to regulate encryption , not an attempt to stop a 3 strikes law.UK civil " service " hell is the compromise created by pleasing as many special interests as possible , except the interests of the individual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is actually a precursor to demands to regulate encryption, not an attempt to stop a 3 strikes law.UK civil "service" hell is the compromise created by pleasing as many special interests as possible, except the interests of the individual.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888477</id>
	<title>Re:Soo... encryption isn't that useful to begin wi</title>
	<author>dedazo</author>
	<datestamp>1256635260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They'll just pass a law requiring you to hand over the key. I believe those exist already in the US at least.</p><p>Either way, you're screwed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll just pass a law requiring you to hand over the key .
I believe those exist already in the US at least.Either way , you 're screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll just pass a law requiring you to hand over the key.
I believe those exist already in the US at least.Either way, you're screwed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888611</id>
	<title>Re:Law enforcement isn't a US sports game</title>
	<author>nelsonal</author>
	<datestamp>1256635740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>3 strikes became a cause in the US, during the rise in violent crime as various street gangs warred for control of the crack trade.  Essentially cities saw huge increases in crime and policies of the time weren't doing enough to make citizens feel safe.  So led by Western states (where voters almost always have some ability to directly pass laws) votors passed laws mandating that for certain types of crimes (normally murder, attempted murder, rape, and armed robbery sometimes others as well) a third conviction would result in an automatic life sentance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 strikes became a cause in the US , during the rise in violent crime as various street gangs warred for control of the crack trade .
Essentially cities saw huge increases in crime and policies of the time were n't doing enough to make citizens feel safe .
So led by Western states ( where voters almost always have some ability to directly pass laws ) votors passed laws mandating that for certain types of crimes ( normally murder , attempted murder , rape , and armed robbery sometimes others as well ) a third conviction would result in an automatic life sentance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3 strikes became a cause in the US, during the rise in violent crime as various street gangs warred for control of the crack trade.
Essentially cities saw huge increases in crime and policies of the time weren't doing enough to make citizens feel safe.
So led by Western states (where voters almost always have some ability to directly pass laws) votors passed laws mandating that for certain types of crimes (normally murder, attempted murder, rape, and armed robbery sometimes others as well) a third conviction would result in an automatic life sentance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29894343</id>
	<title>Re:Law enforcement isn't a US sports game</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1256722980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I think the notion is that if you have committed 3 crimes of a certain level, Felonies for example, you are likely to just be an habitual criminal and be locked up permanently for the good of society.</i> <br> <br>One really big fly in the ointment is that those making the law appear to have a sizable proportion of habitual criminals...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the notion is that if you have committed 3 crimes of a certain level , Felonies for example , you are likely to just be an habitual criminal and be locked up permanently for the good of society .
One really big fly in the ointment is that those making the law appear to have a sizable proportion of habitual criminals.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the notion is that if you have committed 3 crimes of a certain level, Felonies for example, you are likely to just be an habitual criminal and be locked up permanently for the good of society.
One really big fly in the ointment is that those making the law appear to have a sizable proportion of habitual criminals...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888257</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888279</id>
	<title>In other news,</title>
	<author>Nautical Insanity</author>
	<datestamp>1256634420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>law enforcement is against bad weather because it motivates people to live in houses and that makes citizens more difficult to monitor for criminal activity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>law enforcement is against bad weather because it motivates people to live in houses and that makes citizens more difficult to monitor for criminal activity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>law enforcement is against bad weather because it motivates people to live in houses and that makes citizens more difficult to monitor for criminal activity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887921</id>
	<title>Preemption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256676180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give people legal right to 1mbit as the finns, then this law would never happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give people legal right to 1mbit as the finns , then this law would never happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give people legal right to 1mbit as the finns, then this law would never happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29890001</id>
	<title>Different sports analogy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256641020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad the law wasn't thought up by Canadian lawyers. If you get caught filesharing, you can't connect to the Net for 2 minutes.</p><p>Of course, starting a flame war might get you 5 minutes, but would that really be so bad?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad the law was n't thought up by Canadian lawyers .
If you get caught filesharing , you ca n't connect to the Net for 2 minutes.Of course , starting a flame war might get you 5 minutes , but would that really be so bad ?
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad the law wasn't thought up by Canadian lawyers.
If you get caught filesharing, you can't connect to the Net for 2 minutes.Of course, starting a flame war might get you 5 minutes, but would that really be so bad?
:P</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888055</id>
	<title>Re:UK</title>
	<author>hannson</author>
	<datestamp>1256676720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't be surprised. They're not considering what's good for \_people\_ they're considering what's good for them. It's bad for big brother if all the internets are encrypted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be surprised .
They 're not considering what 's good for \ _people \ _ they 're considering what 's good for them .
It 's bad for big brother if all the internets are encrypted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be surprised.
They're not considering what's good for \_people\_ they're considering what's good for them.
It's bad for big brother if all the internets are encrypted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888231</id>
	<title>Re:Soo... encryption isn't that useful to begin wi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256634180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If commerical encryption were truly unbreakable by these groups, then I'd assume that they would have outlawed their use by now.  That is a troubling thought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If commerical encryption were truly unbreakable by these groups , then I 'd assume that they would have outlawed their use by now .
That is a troubling thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If commerical encryption were truly unbreakable by these groups, then I'd assume that they would have outlawed their use by now.
That is a troubling thought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888011</id>
	<title>So, its Copyright vs. National Security.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256676540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did the Copyright cartels not think 3 steps ahead here?</p><p>Granted suspected 'evil-doers' are probably already using encryption, but once you force untold thousands into the encryption game, you've suddenly forced a needle in the haystack scenario, if it isn't there already.</p><p>It would be highly amusing if National Security was brought to its knees by the very heart of the Copyright industry. Protecting profits at the expense of your national safety..... blah, blah, something about reaping what you sow.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did the Copyright cartels not think 3 steps ahead here ? Granted suspected 'evil-doers ' are probably already using encryption , but once you force untold thousands into the encryption game , you 've suddenly forced a needle in the haystack scenario , if it is n't there already.It would be highly amusing if National Security was brought to its knees by the very heart of the Copyright industry .
Protecting profits at the expense of your national safety..... blah , blah , something about reaping what you sow.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did the Copyright cartels not think 3 steps ahead here?Granted suspected 'evil-doers' are probably already using encryption, but once you force untold thousands into the encryption game, you've suddenly forced a needle in the haystack scenario, if it isn't there already.It would be highly amusing if National Security was brought to its knees by the very heart of the Copyright industry.
Protecting profits at the expense of your national safety..... blah, blah, something about reaping what you sow.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29895975</id>
	<title>Re:Soo... encryption isn't that useful to begin wi</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1256739300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They require you to relinquish your encryption keys for a reason.</p><p>There are similar dilemmas in law enforcement in North America -- if you won't roll down your window for the police when they pull you over for example, and they force their way into your vehicle, they've just committed (in most cases) an illegal search and everything else becomes fruit of the poison tree*.</p><p>Police procedure combined with human rights can in fact hinder investigation of some crimes, but some of us would argue that the rights and liberties are more important.</p><p>*IANAL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They require you to relinquish your encryption keys for a reason.There are similar dilemmas in law enforcement in North America -- if you wo n't roll down your window for the police when they pull you over for example , and they force their way into your vehicle , they 've just committed ( in most cases ) an illegal search and everything else becomes fruit of the poison tree * .Police procedure combined with human rights can in fact hinder investigation of some crimes , but some of us would argue that the rights and liberties are more important .
* IANAL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They require you to relinquish your encryption keys for a reason.There are similar dilemmas in law enforcement in North America -- if you won't roll down your window for the police when they pull you over for example, and they force their way into your vehicle, they've just committed (in most cases) an illegal search and everything else becomes fruit of the poison tree*.Police procedure combined with human rights can in fact hinder investigation of some crimes, but some of us would argue that the rights and liberties are more important.
*IANAL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888993</id>
	<title>Re:Soo... encryption isn't that useful to begin wi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256637060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If commercial encryption were truly unbreakable by these groups, then I'd assume that they would have outlawed their use by now.  That is a troubling thought.</p></div><p>Good (ie created by people who know what they are doing, not some snake-oil salesman) encryption is currently unbreakable, If it were breakable, the feds wouldn't have had to install a key logger on a mobsters computer to get the PGP passphrase.  If it were breakable, the UK wouldn't have enacted a law to make it a crime to keep your mouth shut when asked for the encryption key.  If it were breakable, the police wouldn't care if people used it.</p><p>Sure, you can go about and spew conspiracy theories about how the NSA can break anything, but I seriously doubt that is the case. Oh, it's no doubt that they try.  They need to know if other governments can break the encryption, so they try.  But once they have something broke, they make recommendations on how to secure the algorythm.  Remember DES?  They told IBM to make a couple of changes, making the algorithm stronger.  If they knew of a significant weakness in AES, they wouldn't have recommended AES.  If a significant weakness in AES is found (and there are attacks on it coming from the public sector), a new call for encryption will be made.</p><p>Another reason I don't think the NSA is overly concerned that they can't crack something is that they know that sometimes a $5 wrench, a $500 bribe, or $5,000 informant is a lot cheaper and faster then trying to break the encryption.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If commercial encryption were truly unbreakable by these groups , then I 'd assume that they would have outlawed their use by now .
That is a troubling thought.Good ( ie created by people who know what they are doing , not some snake-oil salesman ) encryption is currently unbreakable , If it were breakable , the feds would n't have had to install a key logger on a mobsters computer to get the PGP passphrase .
If it were breakable , the UK would n't have enacted a law to make it a crime to keep your mouth shut when asked for the encryption key .
If it were breakable , the police would n't care if people used it.Sure , you can go about and spew conspiracy theories about how the NSA can break anything , but I seriously doubt that is the case .
Oh , it 's no doubt that they try .
They need to know if other governments can break the encryption , so they try .
But once they have something broke , they make recommendations on how to secure the algorythm .
Remember DES ?
They told IBM to make a couple of changes , making the algorithm stronger .
If they knew of a significant weakness in AES , they would n't have recommended AES .
If a significant weakness in AES is found ( and there are attacks on it coming from the public sector ) , a new call for encryption will be made.Another reason I do n't think the NSA is overly concerned that they ca n't crack something is that they know that sometimes a $ 5 wrench , a $ 500 bribe , or $ 5,000 informant is a lot cheaper and faster then trying to break the encryption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If commercial encryption were truly unbreakable by these groups, then I'd assume that they would have outlawed their use by now.
That is a troubling thought.Good (ie created by people who know what they are doing, not some snake-oil salesman) encryption is currently unbreakable, If it were breakable, the feds wouldn't have had to install a key logger on a mobsters computer to get the PGP passphrase.
If it were breakable, the UK wouldn't have enacted a law to make it a crime to keep your mouth shut when asked for the encryption key.
If it were breakable, the police wouldn't care if people used it.Sure, you can go about and spew conspiracy theories about how the NSA can break anything, but I seriously doubt that is the case.
Oh, it's no doubt that they try.
They need to know if other governments can break the encryption, so they try.
But once they have something broke, they make recommendations on how to secure the algorythm.
Remember DES?
They told IBM to make a couple of changes, making the algorithm stronger.
If they knew of a significant weakness in AES, they wouldn't have recommended AES.
If a significant weakness in AES is found (and there are attacks on it coming from the public sector), a new call for encryption will be made.Another reason I don't think the NSA is overly concerned that they can't crack something is that they know that sometimes a $5 wrench, a $500 bribe, or $5,000 informant is a lot cheaper and faster then trying to break the encryption.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917</id>
	<title>Law enforcement isn't a US sports game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256676120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Never really understood this "3 strikes and you're out" theory. Law enforcement is too complex to be modelled after the rules of a US sports game. Can somebody explain how this idiotic idea came about, the thinking behind it?</p><p>What next? You don't go to jail if you say "Simon says" before committing an offence? Police can't arrest you if you're not touching the ground when they catch up with you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Never really understood this " 3 strikes and you 're out " theory .
Law enforcement is too complex to be modelled after the rules of a US sports game .
Can somebody explain how this idiotic idea came about , the thinking behind it ? What next ?
You do n't go to jail if you say " Simon says " before committing an offence ?
Police ca n't arrest you if you 're not touching the ground when they catch up with you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never really understood this "3 strikes and you're out" theory.
Law enforcement is too complex to be modelled after the rules of a US sports game.
Can somebody explain how this idiotic idea came about, the thinking behind it?What next?
You don't go to jail if you say "Simon says" before committing an offence?
Police can't arrest you if you're not touching the ground when they catch up with you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887963</id>
	<title>E7J9D W34F6</title>
	<author>davebarnes</author>
	<datestamp>1256676360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LP098 5B6FR</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LP098 5B6FR</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LP098 5B6FR</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888193</id>
	<title>Re:Soo... encryption isn't that useful to begin wi</title>
	<author>melikamp</author>
	<datestamp>1256634000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Encryption simply forces them to tap your keyboard, and the costs of that
are much higher than the costs of running Wireshark on a router somewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Encryption simply forces them to tap your keyboard , and the costs of that are much higher than the costs of running Wireshark on a router somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Encryption simply forces them to tap your keyboard, and the costs of that
are much higher than the costs of running Wireshark on a router somewhere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888021</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888915</id>
	<title>Reassuring</title>
	<author>Cap'n Refsmmat</author>
	<datestamp>1256636820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least this hints that there isn't a trivial way of breaking RSA, AES, or the other popular systems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least this hints that there is n't a trivial way of breaking RSA , AES , or the other popular systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least this hints that there isn't a trivial way of breaking RSA, AES, or the other popular systems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888475</id>
	<title>MI5 and MI6?</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1256635260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't know they made three more movies, but MI3 sure sucked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't know they made three more movies , but MI3 sure sucked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't know they made three more movies, but MI3 sure sucked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29894383</id>
	<title>Re:Law enforcement isn't a US sports game</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1256723580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The impression I've gotten is that some judges (the ones I've heard about have been left-leaning) are too sympathetic to the criminals, and say things like "Well, yes, he did *murder* someone, but he's just a big lovable puppy" (ok, I exaggerate<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) ).  This was the legislator's attempt to say "While we don't want to take things out of the hands of judges completely, there's a certain point where people should just be locked up".</i> <br> <br>One reason for locking someone up for life is that they are a danger to the public. Many, possibly the majority, of murderers are only interested in killing a specific person or specific people. Thus were never a danger to the public in the first place. There might also be a good case for someone guilty of attempted murder to be held only until their intended victim dies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The impression I 've gotten is that some judges ( the ones I 've heard about have been left-leaning ) are too sympathetic to the criminals , and say things like " Well , yes , he did * murder * someone , but he 's just a big lovable puppy " ( ok , I exaggerate : ) ) .
This was the legislator 's attempt to say " While we do n't want to take things out of the hands of judges completely , there 's a certain point where people should just be locked up " .
One reason for locking someone up for life is that they are a danger to the public .
Many , possibly the majority , of murderers are only interested in killing a specific person or specific people .
Thus were never a danger to the public in the first place .
There might also be a good case for someone guilty of attempted murder to be held only until their intended victim dies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The impression I've gotten is that some judges (the ones I've heard about have been left-leaning) are too sympathetic to the criminals, and say things like "Well, yes, he did *murder* someone, but he's just a big lovable puppy" (ok, I exaggerate :) ).
This was the legislator's attempt to say "While we don't want to take things out of the hands of judges completely, there's a certain point where people should just be locked up".
One reason for locking someone up for life is that they are a danger to the public.
Many, possibly the majority, of murderers are only interested in killing a specific person or specific people.
Thus were never a danger to the public in the first place.
There might also be a good case for someone guilty of attempted murder to be held only until their intended victim dies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888713</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29894395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29904303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888267
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29895477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29894383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29889447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29894343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29889191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29889027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29890077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29899711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29890759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29889613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29894435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888257
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29904457
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29889249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_27_1833206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29895975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1833206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29890077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29889447
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1833206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1833206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888157
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1833206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887963
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1833206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29894395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29895477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29889613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29889191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29904303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888257
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29894343
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29894435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888713
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29894383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29889249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29890759
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1833206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888055
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1833206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887829
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1833206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29899711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888193
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29889027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888231
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29895975
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888083
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1833206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29887835
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1833206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888011
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1833206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_27_1833206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29888535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_27_1833206.29904457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
