<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_08_1352249</id>
	<title>Lawsuit Claims Top iPhone Games Stole User Data</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1257704400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>pdclarry writes <i>"Storm8, a maker of some top iPhone games, allegedly <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/06/iphone\_games\_storm8\_lawsuit/">stole users' mobile phone numbers</a>, according to a lawsuit filed on November 4. The suit claims that best-selling games made by Storm8 contained secret code that bypassed safeguards built into the iPhone to prevent the unauthorized snooping of user information. There have been other reports of <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/ybenjamin/detail?blogid=150&amp;entry\_id=46236">applications copying personally identifiable customer information</a> in the past. The complaint seeks class-action status."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>pdclarry writes " Storm8 , a maker of some top iPhone games , allegedly stole users ' mobile phone numbers , according to a lawsuit filed on November 4 .
The suit claims that best-selling games made by Storm8 contained secret code that bypassed safeguards built into the iPhone to prevent the unauthorized snooping of user information .
There have been other reports of applications copying personally identifiable customer information in the past .
The complaint seeks class-action status .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pdclarry writes "Storm8, a maker of some top iPhone games, allegedly stole users' mobile phone numbers, according to a lawsuit filed on November 4.
The suit claims that best-selling games made by Storm8 contained secret code that bypassed safeguards built into the iPhone to prevent the unauthorized snooping of user information.
There have been other reports of applications copying personally identifiable customer information in the past.
The complaint seeks class-action status.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30026676</id>
	<title>Re:Apple's "Security" Focus (or lack their of)</title>
	<author>cbreak</author>
	<datestamp>1257685200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For 1: User authentication does not help against data loss due to stolen or lost hardware. Local access means root access, unless encryption is used. And Apple can't turn on FileVault by default since users that aren't careful (master password, write their password down and store it in a safe) would just forget their passwords and lose access to their data permanently.<br>For 2: The purpose of a firewall is to filter traffic to open ports. Mac OS X has no open ports by default. Any services the user chooses to run have to get a hole in the firewall anyway to work. So how exactly would turning the firewall on by default help the security against intrusion?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For 1 : User authentication does not help against data loss due to stolen or lost hardware .
Local access means root access , unless encryption is used .
And Apple ca n't turn on FileVault by default since users that are n't careful ( master password , write their password down and store it in a safe ) would just forget their passwords and lose access to their data permanently.For 2 : The purpose of a firewall is to filter traffic to open ports .
Mac OS X has no open ports by default .
Any services the user chooses to run have to get a hole in the firewall anyway to work .
So how exactly would turning the firewall on by default help the security against intrusion ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For 1: User authentication does not help against data loss due to stolen or lost hardware.
Local access means root access, unless encryption is used.
And Apple can't turn on FileVault by default since users that aren't careful (master password, write their password down and store it in a safe) would just forget their passwords and lose access to their data permanently.For 2: The purpose of a firewall is to filter traffic to open ports.
Mac OS X has no open ports by default.
Any services the user chooses to run have to get a hole in the firewall anyway to work.
So how exactly would turning the firewall on by default help the security against intrusion?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024124</id>
	<title>Re:Big Surprise...</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1257711120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; When will encrypted data at the 2048 and higher bit level make it into the<br>&gt; tech we take for granted on a daily basis.</p><p>When a significant number of customers won't buy "tech" without it.  The fact is most people don't care, including most of those who complain about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; When will encrypted data at the 2048 and higher bit level make it into the &gt; tech we take for granted on a daily basis.When a significant number of customers wo n't buy " tech " without it .
The fact is most people do n't care , including most of those who complain about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; When will encrypted data at the 2048 and higher bit level make it into the&gt; tech we take for granted on a daily basis.When a significant number of customers won't buy "tech" without it.
The fact is most people don't care, including most of those who complain about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30036736</id>
	<title>Open Source!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257798240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just another reason to use an OPEN SOURCE phone OS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just another reason to use an OPEN SOURCE phone OS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just another reason to use an OPEN SOURCE phone OS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30027354</id>
	<title>Re:Apple's "Security" Focus (or lack their of)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257689640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unless you specifically set your keychain password to something other than your admin password this also means any password you store in there is compromised too.</p></div><p>This doesn't sound correct. As far as I'm aware, overriding the admin password will not grant access to keychain?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you specifically set your keychain password to something other than your admin password this also means any password you store in there is compromised too.This does n't sound correct .
As far as I 'm aware , overriding the admin password will not grant access to keychain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you specifically set your keychain password to something other than your admin password this also means any password you store in there is compromised too.This doesn't sound correct.
As far as I'm aware, overriding the admin password will not grant access to keychain?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024138</id>
	<title>After all, this is the domain of the big players</title>
	<author>deodiaus2</author>
	<datestamp>1257711300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't it that it is all right for your carrier (ATT &amp; Verizon) to sell your phone records (Amdocs) to anyone who has a couple of bucks?  How dare these little players get into this game.  Next thing you know is that customers might start thinking that their financial records are their alone and not the property of their financial institutes.
I keep reading more and more about how the 4th Amendment does not apply to records stored on servers, only to records that are physically located in your house.  Next thing you know, attorney client privileges will be the property of the attorney who will charge you even more if he has something really incriminating.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it that it is all right for your carrier ( ATT &amp; Verizon ) to sell your phone records ( Amdocs ) to anyone who has a couple of bucks ?
How dare these little players get into this game .
Next thing you know is that customers might start thinking that their financial records are their alone and not the property of their financial institutes .
I keep reading more and more about how the 4th Amendment does not apply to records stored on servers , only to records that are physically located in your house .
Next thing you know , attorney client privileges will be the property of the attorney who will charge you even more if he has something really incriminating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it that it is all right for your carrier (ATT &amp; Verizon) to sell your phone records (Amdocs) to anyone who has a couple of bucks?
How dare these little players get into this game.
Next thing you know is that customers might start thinking that their financial records are their alone and not the property of their financial institutes.
I keep reading more and more about how the 4th Amendment does not apply to records stored on servers, only to records that are physically located in your house.
Next thing you know, attorney client privileges will be the property of the attorney who will charge you even more if he has something really incriminating.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30025036</id>
	<title>Which of these are valid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257674160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>MacBook's default to no user authentication which is unacceptable for a portable device that can be stolen or misplaced. </i></p><p>Are you sure about that?   Every new Mac I've seen, you have to set up a user account (with password) first.  Are you talking about how there is a setting to log you in automatically on restart?</p><p><i>The OS X Firewall is disabled by default. Let's assume every OS X component is 100\% secure, there's no way that every OS X app is. </i></p><p>This makes no sense.  No ports are open by default, so just what would the firewall be, well, firewalling?  With no ports open by default it's pretty much pointless to target any of the services since so few of them are likley to be turned on across the population.  That's actually the real reason we've seen no viruses on OS X, because there's no target vector wide enough to be worth the trouble - thus all attacks are trojan style.</p><p>If a particular app has a flaw how does a firewall help, if that app choses to listen on a port?  Wouldn't it have to do that around the firewall anyway?</p><p><i>And as a completely random example... AppleTV only supports WEP</i></p><p>As stated by other posters, this is not correct.</p><p><i>I like OS X and the new unibody MacBooks just rock... but Apple's shwarmy and basically indifferent attitude to security </i></p><p>I disagree here, I think Apple has been very security conscious in the ways that actually matter most to users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MacBook 's default to no user authentication which is unacceptable for a portable device that can be stolen or misplaced .
Are you sure about that ?
Every new Mac I 've seen , you have to set up a user account ( with password ) first .
Are you talking about how there is a setting to log you in automatically on restart ? The OS X Firewall is disabled by default .
Let 's assume every OS X component is 100 \ % secure , there 's no way that every OS X app is .
This makes no sense .
No ports are open by default , so just what would the firewall be , well , firewalling ?
With no ports open by default it 's pretty much pointless to target any of the services since so few of them are likley to be turned on across the population .
That 's actually the real reason we 've seen no viruses on OS X , because there 's no target vector wide enough to be worth the trouble - thus all attacks are trojan style.If a particular app has a flaw how does a firewall help , if that app choses to listen on a port ?
Would n't it have to do that around the firewall anyway ? And as a completely random example... AppleTV only supports WEPAs stated by other posters , this is not correct.I like OS X and the new unibody MacBooks just rock... but Apple 's shwarmy and basically indifferent attitude to security I disagree here , I think Apple has been very security conscious in the ways that actually matter most to users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MacBook's default to no user authentication which is unacceptable for a portable device that can be stolen or misplaced.
Are you sure about that?
Every new Mac I've seen, you have to set up a user account (with password) first.
Are you talking about how there is a setting to log you in automatically on restart?The OS X Firewall is disabled by default.
Let's assume every OS X component is 100\% secure, there's no way that every OS X app is.
This makes no sense.
No ports are open by default, so just what would the firewall be, well, firewalling?
With no ports open by default it's pretty much pointless to target any of the services since so few of them are likley to be turned on across the population.
That's actually the real reason we've seen no viruses on OS X, because there's no target vector wide enough to be worth the trouble - thus all attacks are trojan style.If a particular app has a flaw how does a firewall help, if that app choses to listen on a port?
Wouldn't it have to do that around the firewall anyway?And as a completely random example... AppleTV only supports WEPAs stated by other posters, this is not correct.I like OS X and the new unibody MacBooks just rock... but Apple's shwarmy and basically indifferent attitude to security I disagree here, I think Apple has been very security conscious in the ways that actually matter most to users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30034460</id>
	<title>Re:note to Apple</title>
	<author>brkello</author>
	<datestamp>1257788820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>2 words: bull shit.  Anything on the Internet is vulnerable...anything!  Closed or open source.  Mass adoption just means there is something that hackers can focus on.  It means that when they find a vulnerability it works on more machines since something is mass adopted.  Is some code more secure than other code?  Absolutely.  But to say that mass adoption isn't a security risk is naive in the extreme.</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 words : bull shit .
Anything on the Internet is vulnerable...anything !
Closed or open source .
Mass adoption just means there is something that hackers can focus on .
It means that when they find a vulnerability it works on more machines since something is mass adopted .
Is some code more secure than other code ?
Absolutely. But to say that mass adoption is n't a security risk is naive in the extreme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2 words: bull shit.
Anything on the Internet is vulnerable...anything!
Closed or open source.
Mass adoption just means there is something that hackers can focus on.
It means that when they find a vulnerability it works on more machines since something is mass adopted.
Is some code more secure than other code?
Absolutely.  But to say that mass adoption isn't a security risk is naive in the extreme.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30025546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024408</id>
	<title>Apple's "Security" Focus (or lack their of)</title>
	<author>thesandbender</author>
	<datestamp>1257713400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a recent convert to Apple (short story OS X is a nice balance between Unix and applications I need to use for my client base) I was a little shocked by how nonchalant Apple seems to take user security.
<br> <br>
1. MacBook's default to no user authentication which is unacceptable for a portable device that can be stolen or misplaced.
<br>
2. The OS X Firewall is disabled by default.  Let's assume every OS X component is 100\% secure, there's no way that every OS X app is.
<br>
3. And as a completely random example... AppleTV only supports WEP.  I know this is a nit-picky thing but it shows Apple's indifference.  WEP has been thoroughly and completely broken... yet one of Apple's primary devices will not support a more secure protocol.  You want to use your new toy you have to downgrade your security.
<br> <br>
I like OS X and the new unibody MacBooks just rock... but Apple's shwarmy and basically indifferent attitude to security is going to end up biting them in the arse.
<br><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/I've strapped on my fire-proof britches... fire away<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a recent convert to Apple ( short story OS X is a nice balance between Unix and applications I need to use for my client base ) I was a little shocked by how nonchalant Apple seems to take user security .
1. MacBook 's default to no user authentication which is unacceptable for a portable device that can be stolen or misplaced .
2. The OS X Firewall is disabled by default .
Let 's assume every OS X component is 100 \ % secure , there 's no way that every OS X app is .
3. And as a completely random example... AppleTV only supports WEP .
I know this is a nit-picky thing but it shows Apple 's indifference .
WEP has been thoroughly and completely broken... yet one of Apple 's primary devices will not support a more secure protocol .
You want to use your new toy you have to downgrade your security .
I like OS X and the new unibody MacBooks just rock... but Apple 's shwarmy and basically indifferent attitude to security is going to end up biting them in the arse .
/I 've strapped on my fire-proof britches... fire away : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a recent convert to Apple (short story OS X is a nice balance between Unix and applications I need to use for my client base) I was a little shocked by how nonchalant Apple seems to take user security.
1. MacBook's default to no user authentication which is unacceptable for a portable device that can be stolen or misplaced.
2. The OS X Firewall is disabled by default.
Let's assume every OS X component is 100\% secure, there's no way that every OS X app is.
3. And as a completely random example... AppleTV only supports WEP.
I know this is a nit-picky thing but it shows Apple's indifference.
WEP has been thoroughly and completely broken... yet one of Apple's primary devices will not support a more secure protocol.
You want to use your new toy you have to downgrade your security.
I like OS X and the new unibody MacBooks just rock... but Apple's shwarmy and basically indifferent attitude to security is going to end up biting them in the arse.
/I've strapped on my fire-proof britches... fire away :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023858</id>
	<title>Re:Big Surprise...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257708900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to think about that some more. Unless the user is required to enter their password every time they access the data (which would get very annoying real fast), there will have to be some kind of key caching, with safeguards to prevent the wrong applications from using it. What's to stop a bad application from bypassing those safeguards?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to think about that some more .
Unless the user is required to enter their password every time they access the data ( which would get very annoying real fast ) , there will have to be some kind of key caching , with safeguards to prevent the wrong applications from using it .
What 's to stop a bad application from bypassing those safeguards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to think about that some more.
Unless the user is required to enter their password every time they access the data (which would get very annoying real fast), there will have to be some kind of key caching, with safeguards to prevent the wrong applications from using it.
What's to stop a bad application from bypassing those safeguards?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024040</id>
	<title>Re:Clearly an inside job.</title>
	<author>chocomilko</author>
	<datestamp>1257710280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple acknowledges the fact that developers might insert hidden content into their app to skirt the review process. They do warn, however, that they will eventually find out and yank your app -- which is what has happened here.
<p>
Unfortunately, app reviewers literally just install your app on a bunch of devices and tap around the screen to make sure nothing breaks, so any sort of hidden functionality will likely make it past the initial screening.
</p><p>
For the record... my app, <a href="http://www.milktouch.ca/" title="milktouch.ca" rel="nofollow">Touch Health</a> [milktouch.ca], will not steal your phone number.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple acknowledges the fact that developers might insert hidden content into their app to skirt the review process .
They do warn , however , that they will eventually find out and yank your app -- which is what has happened here .
Unfortunately , app reviewers literally just install your app on a bunch of devices and tap around the screen to make sure nothing breaks , so any sort of hidden functionality will likely make it past the initial screening .
For the record... my app , Touch Health [ milktouch.ca ] , will not steal your phone number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple acknowledges the fact that developers might insert hidden content into their app to skirt the review process.
They do warn, however, that they will eventually find out and yank your app -- which is what has happened here.
Unfortunately, app reviewers literally just install your app on a bunch of devices and tap around the screen to make sure nothing breaks, so any sort of hidden functionality will likely make it past the initial screening.
For the record... my app, Touch Health [milktouch.ca], will not steal your phone number.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30026418</id>
	<title>mod uP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257683700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>a dead man walking. coomitterbase and</htmltext>
<tokenext>a dead man walking .
coomitterbase and</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a dead man walking.
coomitterbase and</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30063086</id>
	<title>The Symbian approach.</title>
	<author>Rexdude</author>
	<datestamp>1257102960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Symbian S60 3rd (and now 5th) Edition require all native apps to be digitally signed with a developer certificate that has to be bought from their site, and you can't sign up to purchase from a generic webmail account. Different types of certificates grant different permissions to the application for access to user data and handset features like SMS,calls, bluetooth,wifi, GPS etc.(</p><p>The handsets also block unsigned applications from being installed, so this also deters casual piracy (since a cracked Symbian application would not have the developer certificate).<br>Of course, if you're determined, there are utilities to hack the phone's keystore and insert your own certificate there (which can be used to sign the cracked apps that you get.</p><p>The bottom line is, this approach works fine for regular users who wouldn't mess around with cracked apps, and yet there's no need for any approval process.</p><p>Apple may talk of the end user 'experience', but that should be upto the end user. There are people who overclock their GPUs, replace and tweak their cars' engines and so on, well aware of the risks of screwing up as well as the fact that it voids their warranty. I don't see why such an EULA shouldn't work for Apple. Let those who want to use the Appstore use it, let others who wanna hack the firmware do it and void their warranty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Symbian S60 3rd ( and now 5th ) Edition require all native apps to be digitally signed with a developer certificate that has to be bought from their site , and you ca n't sign up to purchase from a generic webmail account .
Different types of certificates grant different permissions to the application for access to user data and handset features like SMS,calls , bluetooth,wifi , GPS etc .
( The handsets also block unsigned applications from being installed , so this also deters casual piracy ( since a cracked Symbian application would not have the developer certificate ) .Of course , if you 're determined , there are utilities to hack the phone 's keystore and insert your own certificate there ( which can be used to sign the cracked apps that you get.The bottom line is , this approach works fine for regular users who would n't mess around with cracked apps , and yet there 's no need for any approval process.Apple may talk of the end user 'experience ' , but that should be upto the end user .
There are people who overclock their GPUs , replace and tweak their cars ' engines and so on , well aware of the risks of screwing up as well as the fact that it voids their warranty .
I do n't see why such an EULA should n't work for Apple .
Let those who want to use the Appstore use it , let others who wan na hack the firmware do it and void their warranty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Symbian S60 3rd (and now 5th) Edition require all native apps to be digitally signed with a developer certificate that has to be bought from their site, and you can't sign up to purchase from a generic webmail account.
Different types of certificates grant different permissions to the application for access to user data and handset features like SMS,calls, bluetooth,wifi, GPS etc.
(The handsets also block unsigned applications from being installed, so this also deters casual piracy (since a cracked Symbian application would not have the developer certificate).Of course, if you're determined, there are utilities to hack the phone's keystore and insert your own certificate there (which can be used to sign the cracked apps that you get.The bottom line is, this approach works fine for regular users who wouldn't mess around with cracked apps, and yet there's no need for any approval process.Apple may talk of the end user 'experience', but that should be upto the end user.
There are people who overclock their GPUs, replace and tweak their cars' engines and so on, well aware of the risks of screwing up as well as the fact that it voids their warranty.
I don't see why such an EULA shouldn't work for Apple.
Let those who want to use the Appstore use it, let others who wanna hack the firmware do it and void their warranty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023774</id>
	<title>App Testing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257708240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then what kind of app DOES Apple reject?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then what kind of app DOES Apple reject ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then what kind of app DOES Apple reject?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30025672</id>
	<title>Re:Big Surprise...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257678780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Data encryption is just not practical within US boarders, our government is just too paranoid and nosy. Law enforcement will demand backdoors be required (such as CALEA, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act), and if there are backdoors built in for them to use then hackers and unscrupulous businesses will use them too.</p><p>Also no device using encryption can ever be offered for export, ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) forbids it, attempting to leave the USA with an iphone with encrypted data on it is exactly the same as attempting to smuggle out a nuclear weapon (in the eyes of the law anyway).</p><p>The only way to stop these scumbag businesses from snooping is to have actual consequences for getting caught. I'm not talking about a slap on the wrist and a little fine either, I'm talking about long prison sentences for company executives. Only once there are actual consequences with this activity stop.</p><p>Remember, if <b>YOU</b> were caught doing this then you would be sitting in lockup (with no bail) right now awaiting trial on multiple criminal felonies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Data encryption is just not practical within US boarders , our government is just too paranoid and nosy .
Law enforcement will demand backdoors be required ( such as CALEA , the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act ) , and if there are backdoors built in for them to use then hackers and unscrupulous businesses will use them too.Also no device using encryption can ever be offered for export , ITAR ( International Traffic in Arms Regulations ) forbids it , attempting to leave the USA with an iphone with encrypted data on it is exactly the same as attempting to smuggle out a nuclear weapon ( in the eyes of the law anyway ) .The only way to stop these scumbag businesses from snooping is to have actual consequences for getting caught .
I 'm not talking about a slap on the wrist and a little fine either , I 'm talking about long prison sentences for company executives .
Only once there are actual consequences with this activity stop.Remember , if YOU were caught doing this then you would be sitting in lockup ( with no bail ) right now awaiting trial on multiple criminal felonies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Data encryption is just not practical within US boarders, our government is just too paranoid and nosy.
Law enforcement will demand backdoors be required (such as CALEA, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act), and if there are backdoors built in for them to use then hackers and unscrupulous businesses will use them too.Also no device using encryption can ever be offered for export, ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) forbids it, attempting to leave the USA with an iphone with encrypted data on it is exactly the same as attempting to smuggle out a nuclear weapon (in the eyes of the law anyway).The only way to stop these scumbag businesses from snooping is to have actual consequences for getting caught.
I'm not talking about a slap on the wrist and a little fine either, I'm talking about long prison sentences for company executives.
Only once there are actual consequences with this activity stop.Remember, if YOU were caught doing this then you would be sitting in lockup (with no bail) right now awaiting trial on multiple criminal felonies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024318</id>
	<title>Look for a lawyer...</title>
	<author>NotQuiteReal</author>
	<datestamp>1257712860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The complaint seeks class-action status</i>
<br>
<br>
Even if the "class", um, "wins", it would be something like this; Lawyer gets well paid for all the hard work to bring justice to the world.
<br>
<br>
iPhone users get a coupon for a free iPhone download or two.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The complaint seeks class-action status Even if the " class " , um , " wins " , it would be something like this ; Lawyer gets well paid for all the hard work to bring justice to the world .
iPhone users get a coupon for a free iPhone download or two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The complaint seeks class-action status


Even if the "class", um, "wins", it would be something like this; Lawyer gets well paid for all the hard work to bring justice to the world.
iPhone users get a coupon for a free iPhone download or two.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30038618</id>
	<title>Apple's Privacy Claims to the FCC</title>
	<author>Halotron1</author>
	<datestamp>1257762780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is from <a href="http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/" title="apple.com" rel="nofollow">Apple's letter to the FCC</a> [apple.com], regarding why they rejected / delayed the Google Voice app:</p><p><i>We created an approval process that reviews every application submitted to Apple for the App Store in order to <b>protect consumer privacy</b>, safeguard children from inappropriate content, and avoid applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone. Some types of content such as pornography are rejected outright from the App Store, while others such as graphic combat scenes in action games may be approved but with an appropriate age rating. Most rejections are based on bugs found in the applications. When there is an issue, we try to provide the developer with helpful feedback so they can modify the application in order for us to approve it. 95\% of applications are approved within 14 days of their submission.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is from Apple 's letter to the FCC [ apple.com ] , regarding why they rejected / delayed the Google Voice app : We created an approval process that reviews every application submitted to Apple for the App Store in order to protect consumer privacy , safeguard children from inappropriate content , and avoid applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone .
Some types of content such as pornography are rejected outright from the App Store , while others such as graphic combat scenes in action games may be approved but with an appropriate age rating .
Most rejections are based on bugs found in the applications .
When there is an issue , we try to provide the developer with helpful feedback so they can modify the application in order for us to approve it .
95 \ % of applications are approved within 14 days of their submission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is from Apple's letter to the FCC [apple.com], regarding why they rejected / delayed the Google Voice app:We created an approval process that reviews every application submitted to Apple for the App Store in order to protect consumer privacy, safeguard children from inappropriate content, and avoid applications that degrade the core experience of the iPhone.
Some types of content such as pornography are rejected outright from the App Store, while others such as graphic combat scenes in action games may be approved but with an appropriate age rating.
Most rejections are based on bugs found in the applications.
When there is an issue, we try to provide the developer with helpful feedback so they can modify the application in order for us to approve it.
95\% of applications are approved within 14 days of their submission.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30043454</id>
	<title>Re:Big Surprise...</title>
	<author>tmkn</author>
	<datestamp>1257847980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Don't lock the door well, expect thieves, don't weatherize in well, expect to get cold. Don't encrypt your data, expect to lose it to theft.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Sorry, but I prefer my door locked. What a bad advice!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't lock the door well , expect thieves , do n't weatherize in well , expect to get cold .
Do n't encrypt your data , expect to lose it to theft .
Sorry , but I prefer my door locked .
What a bad advice !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't lock the door well, expect thieves, don't weatherize in well, expect to get cold.
Don't encrypt your data, expect to lose it to theft.
Sorry, but I prefer my door locked.
What a bad advice!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024070</id>
	<title>What Safeguards?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257710700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is using standard, documented, code bypassing safeguards?</p><p>NSString *telnum = [[NSUserDefaults standardUserDefaults] stringForKey:@"SBFormattedPhoneNumber"];</p><p>On most devices - at least those that were activated via iTunes - that will return the phone number.  Or null if you're on an iPod Touch.</p><p>Okay, so the developer shouldn't have been harvesting this data, and definitely not without protecting it, but I fail to see how this was bypassing safeguards!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is using standard , documented , code bypassing safeguards ? NSString * telnum = [ [ NSUserDefaults standardUserDefaults ] stringForKey : @ " SBFormattedPhoneNumber " ] ; On most devices - at least those that were activated via iTunes - that will return the phone number .
Or null if you 're on an iPod Touch.Okay , so the developer should n't have been harvesting this data , and definitely not without protecting it , but I fail to see how this was bypassing safeguards !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is using standard, documented, code bypassing safeguards?NSString *telnum = [[NSUserDefaults standardUserDefaults] stringForKey:@"SBFormattedPhoneNumber"];On most devices - at least those that were activated via iTunes - that will return the phone number.
Or null if you're on an iPod Touch.Okay, so the developer shouldn't have been harvesting this data, and definitely not without protecting it, but I fail to see how this was bypassing safeguards!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023810</id>
	<title>Not so secret ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257708540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Getting access to a user's phone number doesn't require a 'secret' code. Any app can do that.</p><p>http://blog.timeister.com/2009/06/25/objective-c-get-iphone-number/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting access to a user 's phone number does n't require a 'secret ' code .
Any app can do that.http : //blog.timeister.com/2009/06/25/objective-c-get-iphone-number/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting access to a user's phone number doesn't require a 'secret' code.
Any app can do that.http://blog.timeister.com/2009/06/25/objective-c-get-iphone-number/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024836</id>
	<title>Re:Big Surprise...</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1257672840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> You need to think about that some more. Unless the user is required to enter their password every time they access the data (which would get very annoying real fast), there will have to be some kind of key caching, with safeguards to prevent the wrong applications from using it. What's to stop a bad application from bypassing those safeguards?</p><p>What you are describing are the kind of measures you take against outside attackers. The problem here is that the attacker is an invited guest. Locked doors don't do much against people you've invited in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to think about that some more .
Unless the user is required to enter their password every time they access the data ( which would get very annoying real fast ) , there will have to be some kind of key caching , with safeguards to prevent the wrong applications from using it .
What 's to stop a bad application from bypassing those safeguards ? What you are describing are the kind of measures you take against outside attackers .
The problem here is that the attacker is an invited guest .
Locked doors do n't do much against people you 've invited in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You need to think about that some more.
Unless the user is required to enter their password every time they access the data (which would get very annoying real fast), there will have to be some kind of key caching, with safeguards to prevent the wrong applications from using it.
What's to stop a bad application from bypassing those safeguards?What you are describing are the kind of measures you take against outside attackers.
The problem here is that the attacker is an invited guest.
Locked doors don't do much against people you've invited in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024536</id>
	<title>Privacy applications are available....</title>
	<author>westyvw</author>
	<datestamp>1257671160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If your phone is jailbroken. I do not know if it protects the user form this company, but it does block information that other companies have been known to try and get. Yet Apple is still trying to convince users that the App store is the only safe place for software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If your phone is jailbroken .
I do not know if it protects the user form this company , but it does block information that other companies have been known to try and get .
Yet Apple is still trying to convince users that the App store is the only safe place for software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your phone is jailbroken.
I do not know if it protects the user form this company, but it does block information that other companies have been known to try and get.
Yet Apple is still trying to convince users that the App store is the only safe place for software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30034244</id>
	<title>End them</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1257788100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; Storm8, a maker of some top iPhone games, allegedly stole users' mobile phone numbers, according to a lawsuit filed on November 4</p><p>If this is true, I will post the cheats I made for all the Storm8 games (since they all use the same backend). This will end them.</p><p>In the meantime, since nobody else hijacked this thread, it's time to mod me into oblivion:</p><p>Kingdoms Live code: y7595v<br>iMobsters code: p4cq9c<br>Racing Live code: 5bycax<br>Vampires Live code: cycvbv<br>Rockstars Live code: 7da3pt<br>World war live code: uhpt7s<br>Zombies Live code: x2q779<br>Ninjas Live code: k73w4</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Storm8 , a maker of some top iPhone games , allegedly stole users ' mobile phone numbers , according to a lawsuit filed on November 4If this is true , I will post the cheats I made for all the Storm8 games ( since they all use the same backend ) .
This will end them.In the meantime , since nobody else hijacked this thread , it 's time to mod me into oblivion : Kingdoms Live code : y7595viMobsters code : p4cq9cRacing Live code : 5bycaxVampires Live code : cycvbvRockstars Live code : 7da3ptWorld war live code : uhpt7sZombies Live code : x2q779Ninjas Live code : k73w4</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; Storm8, a maker of some top iPhone games, allegedly stole users' mobile phone numbers, according to a lawsuit filed on November 4If this is true, I will post the cheats I made for all the Storm8 games (since they all use the same backend).
This will end them.In the meantime, since nobody else hijacked this thread, it's time to mod me into oblivion:Kingdoms Live code: y7595viMobsters code: p4cq9cRacing Live code: 5bycaxVampires Live code: cycvbvRockstars Live code: 7da3ptWorld war live code: uhpt7sZombies Live code: x2q779Ninjas Live code: k73w4</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024756</id>
	<title>Hope Apple is named in the suit as well</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1257672360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Their app review process and tight control over the apps (both the epitome of stupidity IMO) make them a prime candidate to be named as defendant.  Have not RTFA but hope they get the sued and lose big time for their arrogance.  Fuck Steve Jobs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Their app review process and tight control over the apps ( both the epitome of stupidity IMO ) make them a prime candidate to be named as defendant .
Have not RTFA but hope they get the sued and lose big time for their arrogance .
Fuck Steve Jobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their app review process and tight control over the apps (both the epitome of stupidity IMO) make them a prime candidate to be named as defendant.
Have not RTFA but hope they get the sued and lose big time for their arrogance.
Fuck Steve Jobs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30041728</id>
	<title>Classic!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257781740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Steal your User Data ? There's an App for that!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Steal your User Data ?
There 's an App for that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Steal your User Data ?
There's an App for that!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024658</id>
	<title>Re:note to Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257671880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And security through obscurity is no security at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And security through obscurity is no security at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And security through obscurity is no security at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023770</id>
	<title>Big Surprise...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257708240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it a real surprise that there are iPhone apps out there that snoop, and bypass safeguards.  When will encrypted data at the 2048 and higher bit level make it into the tech we take for granted on a daily basis.  If you want safeguards, folks need to start using the stuff out on the market that is free to give them some level of protection against theft.  Don't lock the door well, expect thieves, don't weatherize in well, expect to get cold.  Don't encrypt your data, expect to lose it to theft.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it a real surprise that there are iPhone apps out there that snoop , and bypass safeguards .
When will encrypted data at the 2048 and higher bit level make it into the tech we take for granted on a daily basis .
If you want safeguards , folks need to start using the stuff out on the market that is free to give them some level of protection against theft .
Do n't lock the door well , expect thieves , do n't weatherize in well , expect to get cold .
Do n't encrypt your data , expect to lose it to theft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it a real surprise that there are iPhone apps out there that snoop, and bypass safeguards.
When will encrypted data at the 2048 and higher bit level make it into the tech we take for granted on a daily basis.
If you want safeguards, folks need to start using the stuff out on the market that is free to give them some level of protection against theft.
Don't lock the door well, expect thieves, don't weatherize in well, expect to get cold.
Don't encrypt your data, expect to lose it to theft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024164</id>
	<title>Re:App Testing</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1257711480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>skype, opera, flash, and c64 emulators</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>skype , opera , flash , and c64 emulators</tokentext>
<sentencetext>skype, opera, flash, and c64 emulators</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30025546</id>
	<title>Re:note to Apple</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1257677880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>mass-adoption is a security liability. it must be feared as much as holes and bugs in software.  how does it feel to be in Microsoft's shoes?

go ahead, fanbois.  mod me down.</p></div><p>Oh, really? Take a look at the market share of <a href="http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2009/10/17/october\_2009\_web\_server\_survey.html" title="netcraft.com">
 Apache webserver.</a> [netcraft.com] Now which is more secure? IIS or Apache? They are plump target for every organized crime outfits in the world. They host banks and brokerage accounts that transact trillions of dollars day in day out.  And the organized crime outfits don't limit themselves to simple hacker techniques. They would not mind murder and kidnapping and bribing to get passwords or breaking and entering to install key loggers. In that market place Apache shines and IIS lags. </p><p>

 Mass adoption alone is not a security liability. Mass adoption of closed proprietary protocols, be it Apple, be it Microsoft, be it Diebold, is a security liability. The reason is the main interest of Apples and Microsofts and Diebolds is to sell more of their product. Not security of user data. It is important only as much as it affects sales. If there are other factors that influence sales they will be the preoccupation of these companies, not security of user data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>mass-adoption is a security liability .
it must be feared as much as holes and bugs in software .
how does it feel to be in Microsoft 's shoes ?
go ahead , fanbois .
mod me down.Oh , really ?
Take a look at the market share of Apache webserver .
[ netcraft.com ] Now which is more secure ?
IIS or Apache ?
They are plump target for every organized crime outfits in the world .
They host banks and brokerage accounts that transact trillions of dollars day in day out .
And the organized crime outfits do n't limit themselves to simple hacker techniques .
They would not mind murder and kidnapping and bribing to get passwords or breaking and entering to install key loggers .
In that market place Apache shines and IIS lags .
Mass adoption alone is not a security liability .
Mass adoption of closed proprietary protocols , be it Apple , be it Microsoft , be it Diebold , is a security liability .
The reason is the main interest of Apples and Microsofts and Diebolds is to sell more of their product .
Not security of user data .
It is important only as much as it affects sales .
If there are other factors that influence sales they will be the preoccupation of these companies , not security of user data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mass-adoption is a security liability.
it must be feared as much as holes and bugs in software.
how does it feel to be in Microsoft's shoes?
go ahead, fanbois.
mod me down.Oh, really?
Take a look at the market share of 
 Apache webserver.
[netcraft.com] Now which is more secure?
IIS or Apache?
They are plump target for every organized crime outfits in the world.
They host banks and brokerage accounts that transact trillions of dollars day in day out.
And the organized crime outfits don't limit themselves to simple hacker techniques.
They would not mind murder and kidnapping and bribing to get passwords or breaking and entering to install key loggers.
In that market place Apache shines and IIS lags.
Mass adoption alone is not a security liability.
Mass adoption of closed proprietary protocols, be it Apple, be it Microsoft, be it Diebold, is a security liability.
The reason is the main interest of Apples and Microsofts and Diebolds is to sell more of their product.
Not security of user data.
It is important only as much as it affects sales.
If there are other factors that influence sales they will be the preoccupation of these companies, not security of user data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30041358</id>
	<title>There's an app for that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257778500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want a bricked iPhone, there's an app for that you can't refuse.<br>If you want an exploding battery on an iPhone, there's an app for that.<br>Here at Crapple, we strive to give you a crappy overpriced product for you fudgepacking, twinkie sucking snobbish faggots out there that have more money than sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want a bricked iPhone , there 's an app for that you ca n't refuse.If you want an exploding battery on an iPhone , there 's an app for that.Here at Crapple , we strive to give you a crappy overpriced product for you fudgepacking , twinkie sucking snobbish faggots out there that have more money than sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want a bricked iPhone, there's an app for that you can't refuse.If you want an exploding battery on an iPhone, there's an app for that.Here at Crapple, we strive to give you a crappy overpriced product for you fudgepacking, twinkie sucking snobbish faggots out there that have more money than sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024130</id>
	<title>note to Apple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257711180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>mass-adoption is a security liability. it must be feared as much as holes and bugs in software.  how does it feel to be in Microsoft's shoes?

go ahead, fanbois.  mod me down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>mass-adoption is a security liability .
it must be feared as much as holes and bugs in software .
how does it feel to be in Microsoft 's shoes ?
go ahead , fanbois .
mod me down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mass-adoption is a security liability.
it must be feared as much as holes and bugs in software.
how does it feel to be in Microsoft's shoes?
go ahead, fanbois.
mod me down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30028174</id>
	<title>Re:Clearly an inside job.</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1257696300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is possibly the stupidest review process I've ever heard of.</p><p>
Surely Apple has some sort of iPhone emulator they can install on and see what files it accesses.</p><p>
Hell, in this case, your phone number is being transmitted in <b>cleartext</b>, which should have been noticed via a sniffing.</p><p>
Obviously, nothing could even entirely be 100\% sure, (See: Halting problem), but it could be made damn hard for apps to do that sort of stuff.</p><p>
At this point, it's looking like Apple's entire 'review' process is solely to keep competitors out. Yes, yes, I've always heard people say that, but I actually believe they were at least <b>also</b> keeping malicious software out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is possibly the stupidest review process I 've ever heard of .
Surely Apple has some sort of iPhone emulator they can install on and see what files it accesses .
Hell , in this case , your phone number is being transmitted in cleartext , which should have been noticed via a sniffing .
Obviously , nothing could even entirely be 100 \ % sure , ( See : Halting problem ) , but it could be made damn hard for apps to do that sort of stuff .
At this point , it 's looking like Apple 's entire 'review ' process is solely to keep competitors out .
Yes , yes , I 've always heard people say that , but I actually believe they were at least also keeping malicious software out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is possibly the stupidest review process I've ever heard of.
Surely Apple has some sort of iPhone emulator they can install on and see what files it accesses.
Hell, in this case, your phone number is being transmitted in cleartext, which should have been noticed via a sniffing.
Obviously, nothing could even entirely be 100\% sure, (See: Halting problem), but it could be made damn hard for apps to do that sort of stuff.
At this point, it's looking like Apple's entire 'review' process is solely to keep competitors out.
Yes, yes, I've always heard people say that, but I actually believe they were at least also keeping malicious software out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30025634</id>
	<title>Re:Big Surprise...</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1257678480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How will encryption help, when the application that you've been duped into installing is DOING THE SNOOPING?!?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How will encryption help , when the application that you 've been duped into installing is DOING THE SNOOPING ? ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How will encryption help, when the application that you've been duped into installing is DOING THE SNOOPING?!?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30031010</id>
	<title>OS X 10.5+ firewall is app firewall in fact</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1257771180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>App Firewall does have a nice function where it scans for "listening" (server) applications and pops up when some new listening application (server) launched, asks user whether to allow and sign the binary against future modification which in that case, it will popup again.</p><p>They are absolutely stupid to code such a "mac like" app firewall and not enabling it by default. As a good side effect, it could also promote developers sign their apps.</p><p>BTW: Check your ports with nmap locally (nmap) or remotely (grc.com) after putting machine to DMZ. Some real needless ports are always open. I am not suggesting we should all run "stealth", it is just they keep that freaking port 88 open, they keep listening via SMB when you basically share a printer etc. Does everyone have to have a damn Windows machine on their networks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>App Firewall does have a nice function where it scans for " listening " ( server ) applications and pops up when some new listening application ( server ) launched , asks user whether to allow and sign the binary against future modification which in that case , it will popup again.They are absolutely stupid to code such a " mac like " app firewall and not enabling it by default .
As a good side effect , it could also promote developers sign their apps.BTW : Check your ports with nmap locally ( nmap ) or remotely ( grc.com ) after putting machine to DMZ .
Some real needless ports are always open .
I am not suggesting we should all run " stealth " , it is just they keep that freaking port 88 open , they keep listening via SMB when you basically share a printer etc .
Does everyone have to have a damn Windows machine on their networks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>App Firewall does have a nice function where it scans for "listening" (server) applications and pops up when some new listening application (server) launched, asks user whether to allow and sign the binary against future modification which in that case, it will popup again.They are absolutely stupid to code such a "mac like" app firewall and not enabling it by default.
As a good side effect, it could also promote developers sign their apps.BTW: Check your ports with nmap locally (nmap) or remotely (grc.com) after putting machine to DMZ.
Some real needless ports are always open.
I am not suggesting we should all run "stealth", it is just they keep that freaking port 88 open, they keep listening via SMB when you basically share a printer etc.
Does everyone have to have a damn Windows machine on their networks?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30025036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30025804</id>
	<title>Re:note to Apple</title>
	<author>garote</author>
	<datestamp>1257679800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, if you insist.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Seriously, you make a good point, but you've deliberately tarnished it by expressing a smarmy - some would call it unnatural - preference for attention from "fanbois".</p><p>Why do you seek them out?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , if you insist .
...Seriously , you make a good point , but you 've deliberately tarnished it by expressing a smarmy - some would call it unnatural - preference for attention from " fanbois " .Why do you seek them out ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, if you insist.
...Seriously, you make a good point, but you've deliberately tarnished it by expressing a smarmy - some would call it unnatural - preference for attention from "fanbois".Why do you seek them out?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30030442</id>
	<title>iPhone and INet</title>
	<author>bitten</author>
	<datestamp>1257763560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What really concerns me with the iPhone is that there is no control for net access.<br>While every application using GPS must be confirmed internet access is possible.<br>I would like to see something like a an app-whitelist to manage that.</p><p>Turning the data-modes off in the preferences is imho very inconvenient, but of course is<br>the most secure solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What really concerns me with the iPhone is that there is no control for net access.While every application using GPS must be confirmed internet access is possible.I would like to see something like a an app-whitelist to manage that.Turning the data-modes off in the preferences is imho very inconvenient , but of course isthe most secure solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What really concerns me with the iPhone is that there is no control for net access.While every application using GPS must be confirmed internet access is possible.I would like to see something like a an app-whitelist to manage that.Turning the data-modes off in the preferences is imho very inconvenient, but of course isthe most secure solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30032344</id>
	<title>Apple's fault.</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1257780480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do they not ask for your code as you do a request to be included into the apple iphone app store, then if anyone really bothered to read the code and what it does, such is the job of a security analyst at their submissions department, then they would have caught this code, and would not have allowed such a game to be inserted into the iphone to begin with.</p><p>They have a process making it hard visibly only for coders to get their apps in, but guess what, each subsequent version upgrade, should go through the same rigorous process. This is Apple's fault only, and user's should be compensated for the lack of follow through on Apple's side.</p><p>Oh, well, now I don't trust Apple anymore, good thing, I was just about to go get myself an iphone too, guess I will just stick with my palm treo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do they not ask for your code as you do a request to be included into the apple iphone app store , then if anyone really bothered to read the code and what it does , such is the job of a security analyst at their submissions department , then they would have caught this code , and would not have allowed such a game to be inserted into the iphone to begin with.They have a process making it hard visibly only for coders to get their apps in , but guess what , each subsequent version upgrade , should go through the same rigorous process .
This is Apple 's fault only , and user 's should be compensated for the lack of follow through on Apple 's side.Oh , well , now I do n't trust Apple anymore , good thing , I was just about to go get myself an iphone too , guess I will just stick with my palm treo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do they not ask for your code as you do a request to be included into the apple iphone app store, then if anyone really bothered to read the code and what it does, such is the job of a security analyst at their submissions department, then they would have caught this code, and would not have allowed such a game to be inserted into the iphone to begin with.They have a process making it hard visibly only for coders to get their apps in, but guess what, each subsequent version upgrade, should go through the same rigorous process.
This is Apple's fault only, and user's should be compensated for the lack of follow through on Apple's side.Oh, well, now I don't trust Apple anymore, good thing, I was just about to go get myself an iphone too, guess I will just stick with my palm treo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024322</id>
	<title>Re:Big Surprise...</title>
	<author>SleepyHappyDoc</author>
	<datestamp>1257712860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Encryption wouldn't help here.  The API allows access to all kinds of data on the iPhone, which some apps do legitimately require in order to function (for example, a Google Voice-type app would indeed need the user's phone number).  Even if the data was encrypted, the iPhone would happily decrypt it and pass it to the app when given the proper API call.  The issue here is enforcement.  Developers caught doing this kind of thing should be banned from the App Store, and put on some kind of blacklist at Apple so Apple doesn't do further business with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Encryption would n't help here .
The API allows access to all kinds of data on the iPhone , which some apps do legitimately require in order to function ( for example , a Google Voice-type app would indeed need the user 's phone number ) .
Even if the data was encrypted , the iPhone would happily decrypt it and pass it to the app when given the proper API call .
The issue here is enforcement .
Developers caught doing this kind of thing should be banned from the App Store , and put on some kind of blacklist at Apple so Apple does n't do further business with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Encryption wouldn't help here.
The API allows access to all kinds of data on the iPhone, which some apps do legitimately require in order to function (for example, a Google Voice-type app would indeed need the user's phone number).
Even if the data was encrypted, the iPhone would happily decrypt it and pass it to the app when given the proper API call.
The issue here is enforcement.
Developers caught doing this kind of thing should be banned from the App Store, and put on some kind of blacklist at Apple so Apple doesn't do further business with them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30026608</id>
	<title>SFGate are hypocrites..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257684840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That idiot who wrote the SFGate article is a shit-eating hypocrite.</p><p>Because in order to comment on his site, you have to register. To register you have to provide an email address, zip code, age and gender.</p><p>THERE IS NO REASON TO REQUIRE ALL THAT INFORMATION.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That idiot who wrote the SFGate article is a shit-eating hypocrite.Because in order to comment on his site , you have to register .
To register you have to provide an email address , zip code , age and gender.THERE IS NO REASON TO REQUIRE ALL THAT INFORMATION .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That idiot who wrote the SFGate article is a shit-eating hypocrite.Because in order to comment on his site, you have to register.
To register you have to provide an email address, zip code, age and gender.THERE IS NO REASON TO REQUIRE ALL THAT INFORMATION.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024014</id>
	<title>well well well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257710100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there was me thinking that apple were just a very well marketed firm, one that makes money from sad people who need to express themselves with shiny lifestyle choices.</p><p>who'd have thought that they allow this kind of sinister thing to happen!!!!! can they be trusted with your data at all?</p><p>maybe this is why the business crowd won't go near the iphone, apart from the battery life, the dropped calls etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there was me thinking that apple were just a very well marketed firm , one that makes money from sad people who need to express themselves with shiny lifestyle choices.who 'd have thought that they allow this kind of sinister thing to happen ! ! ! ! !
can they be trusted with your data at all ? maybe this is why the business crowd wo n't go near the iphone , apart from the battery life , the dropped calls etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there was me thinking that apple were just a very well marketed firm, one that makes money from sad people who need to express themselves with shiny lifestyle choices.who'd have thought that they allow this kind of sinister thing to happen!!!!!
can they be trusted with your data at all?maybe this is why the business crowd won't go near the iphone, apart from the battery life, the dropped calls etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023782</id>
	<title>Clearly an inside job.</title>
	<author>Reeses</author>
	<datestamp>1257708360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As strict as the Apple store is about getting actual useful apps in, and screening all kinds of apps based on one or two system calls, clearly the only way this could have happened is if Storm8 has someone on the Apple App Approval Team who they know. Otherwise, how would something like this have gotten past such a stringent code review?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As strict as the Apple store is about getting actual useful apps in , and screening all kinds of apps based on one or two system calls , clearly the only way this could have happened is if Storm8 has someone on the Apple App Approval Team who they know .
Otherwise , how would something like this have gotten past such a stringent code review ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As strict as the Apple store is about getting actual useful apps in, and screening all kinds of apps based on one or two system calls, clearly the only way this could have happened is if Storm8 has someone on the Apple App Approval Team who they know.
Otherwise, how would something like this have gotten past such a stringent code review?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30026224</id>
	<title>Re:App Testing</title>
	<author>GameboyRMH</author>
	<datestamp>1257682560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...and anything with naughty words in it, like dictionaries and lyrics apps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...and anything with naughty words in it , like dictionaries and lyrics apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and anything with naughty words in it, like dictionaries and lyrics apps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023904</id>
	<title>Re:Clearly an inside job.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257709200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>They don't have access to the code. Besides, reviewing the code requires non-trivial technical skills. They are checking that apps  conform to certain standards. If somebody really wants to plant backdoor into their app then nothing can realy stop them. There must be an explanation for 10000 fart apps in the store. Perhaps some of them have VOIP client built in...</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't have access to the code .
Besides , reviewing the code requires non-trivial technical skills .
They are checking that apps conform to certain standards .
If somebody really wants to plant backdoor into their app then nothing can realy stop them .
There must be an explanation for 10000 fart apps in the store .
Perhaps some of them have VOIP client built in.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't have access to the code.
Besides, reviewing the code requires non-trivial technical skills.
They are checking that apps  conform to certain standards.
If somebody really wants to plant backdoor into their app then nothing can realy stop them.
There must be an explanation for 10000 fart apps in the store.
Perhaps some of them have VOIP client built in...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023782</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30030842</id>
	<title>Re:App Testing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257768540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Skype is available for free on the App Store, but voice calls work only on WiFi.<br>You're right about the others, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Skype is available for free on the App Store , but voice calls work only on WiFi.You 're right about the others , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skype is available for free on the App Store, but voice calls work only on WiFi.You're right about the others, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30030890</id>
	<title>Message on Storm8 forum</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1257769260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Have storm8 pulled their games as they all show in a search but they cannot be downloaded.</p><p>I get the following error message:</p><p>The item you are trying to buy is no longer available</p><p>I can download other apps but no storm8 games?"</p><p>It means app is pulled from store either by Apple, Storm8 or some court order thing. I still think we should blame the right guys for this, App store and Apple (SDK).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Have storm8 pulled their games as they all show in a search but they can not be downloaded.I get the following error message : The item you are trying to buy is no longer availableI can download other apps but no storm8 games ?
" It means app is pulled from store either by Apple , Storm8 or some court order thing .
I still think we should blame the right guys for this , App store and Apple ( SDK ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Have storm8 pulled their games as they all show in a search but they cannot be downloaded.I get the following error message:The item you are trying to buy is no longer availableI can download other apps but no storm8 games?
"It means app is pulled from store either by Apple, Storm8 or some court order thing.
I still think we should blame the right guys for this, App store and Apple (SDK).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30028808</id>
	<title>Why just the iPhone?</title>
	<author>tlhIngan</author>
	<datestamp>1257701820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From - <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1386337&amp;cid=29585841" title="slashdot.org">http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1386337&amp;cid=29585841</a> [slashdot.org] - every phone OS has ways to get the phone number, much easier than various little hacks to do so. Android, Symbian, Blackberry OS, Windows Mobile. Though to Symbian's credit, you need to do a few tricks (like waiting for a phone call), and Android requires permission.</p><p>The interesting question is, how many apps on those platforms already call home? Why is Apple "innovating" in revealing what could be standard practice elsewhere?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From - http : //yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1386337&amp;cid = 29585841 [ slashdot.org ] - every phone OS has ways to get the phone number , much easier than various little hacks to do so .
Android , Symbian , Blackberry OS , Windows Mobile .
Though to Symbian 's credit , you need to do a few tricks ( like waiting for a phone call ) , and Android requires permission.The interesting question is , how many apps on those platforms already call home ?
Why is Apple " innovating " in revealing what could be standard practice elsewhere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1386337&amp;cid=29585841 [slashdot.org] - every phone OS has ways to get the phone number, much easier than various little hacks to do so.
Android, Symbian, Blackberry OS, Windows Mobile.
Though to Symbian's credit, you need to do a few tricks (like waiting for a phone call), and Android requires permission.The interesting question is, how many apps on those platforms already call home?
Why is Apple "innovating" in revealing what could be standard practice elsewhere?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023978</id>
	<title>Re:Big Surprise...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257709800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh the fools! If only they'd built it with 6001 hulls! When will they learn?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh the fools !
If only they 'd built it with 6001 hulls !
When will they learn ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh the fools!
If only they'd built it with 6001 hulls!
When will they learn?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024126</id>
	<title>approval process a joke.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257711180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>google was able to push private api's in the google iphone app.</p><p>other apps were able to by pass the no streaming over 3g by putting a unseen area to touch to enable 3g streaming.</p><p>the only thing the approval process does it what apple wants in terms of type of app on its phone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>google was able to push private api 's in the google iphone app.other apps were able to by pass the no streaming over 3g by putting a unseen area to touch to enable 3g streaming.the only thing the approval process does it what apple wants in terms of type of app on its phone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>google was able to push private api's in the google iphone app.other apps were able to by pass the no streaming over 3g by putting a unseen area to touch to enable 3g streaming.the only thing the approval process does it what apple wants in terms of type of app on its phone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30025852</id>
	<title>Re:What Safeguards?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1257680040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, not only is the security bad, that's a really horrible way of storing data.  If every app can see it like that then it must be stored in NSGlobalDomain, rather than in the address book's user defaults, and it's stored in a completely unstructured manner.  I thought it was impossible to do this in a worse way than the AddressBook framework on OS X (thankfully largely obsoleted now by sync services), but apparently Apple succeeded.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , not only is the security bad , that 's a really horrible way of storing data .
If every app can see it like that then it must be stored in NSGlobalDomain , rather than in the address book 's user defaults , and it 's stored in a completely unstructured manner .
I thought it was impossible to do this in a worse way than the AddressBook framework on OS X ( thankfully largely obsoleted now by sync services ) , but apparently Apple succeeded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, not only is the security bad, that's a really horrible way of storing data.
If every app can see it like that then it must be stored in NSGlobalDomain, rather than in the address book's user defaults, and it's stored in a completely unstructured manner.
I thought it was impossible to do this in a worse way than the AddressBook framework on OS X (thankfully largely obsoleted now by sync services), but apparently Apple succeeded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30030544</id>
	<title>Can't get extra security even if you pay for it</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1257764700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sad thing is, the best companies on mobile security (telling from Symbian), Kaspersky and F-Secure won't ship any products to a target of "jailbroken" (hacked) iPhones as they want to maintain a relationship with Apple.</p><p>App Store is absolutely impossible since these things run daemons at background, including an app firewall.</p><p>So, even if you pay, you won't have any kind of extra privacy or security on iPhone.</p><p>PS: I got couple of their games, they have "recruit" feature which pulls up Address Book contacts and sends "invitation" to them without using the built in smtp. One must be real stupid not to get suspicious while REVIEWING the game. App Store approving idiot: I am talking to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sad thing is , the best companies on mobile security ( telling from Symbian ) , Kaspersky and F-Secure wo n't ship any products to a target of " jailbroken " ( hacked ) iPhones as they want to maintain a relationship with Apple.App Store is absolutely impossible since these things run daemons at background , including an app firewall.So , even if you pay , you wo n't have any kind of extra privacy or security on iPhone.PS : I got couple of their games , they have " recruit " feature which pulls up Address Book contacts and sends " invitation " to them without using the built in smtp .
One must be real stupid not to get suspicious while REVIEWING the game .
App Store approving idiot : I am talking to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sad thing is, the best companies on mobile security (telling from Symbian), Kaspersky and F-Secure won't ship any products to a target of "jailbroken" (hacked) iPhones as they want to maintain a relationship with Apple.App Store is absolutely impossible since these things run daemons at background, including an app firewall.So, even if you pay, you won't have any kind of extra privacy or security on iPhone.PS: I got couple of their games, they have "recruit" feature which pulls up Address Book contacts and sends "invitation" to them without using the built in smtp.
One must be real stupid not to get suspicious while REVIEWING the game.
App Store approving idiot: I am talking to you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024370</id>
	<title>This is isn't new</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257713160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can get device id (often the number) on games/apps from a variety of carriers.  We're contractually bound only to use it for reporting back to them.  Esp for subscription games.  There's that line about sharing info with our partners in nearly every privacy clause, basically we use it to track you but not to market to you.</p><p>And yes I've worked in the industry for a while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can get device id ( often the number ) on games/apps from a variety of carriers .
We 're contractually bound only to use it for reporting back to them .
Esp for subscription games .
There 's that line about sharing info with our partners in nearly every privacy clause , basically we use it to track you but not to market to you.And yes I 've worked in the industry for a while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can get device id (often the number) on games/apps from a variety of carriers.
We're contractually bound only to use it for reporting back to them.
Esp for subscription games.
There's that line about sharing info with our partners in nearly every privacy clause, basically we use it to track you but not to market to you.And yes I've worked in the industry for a while.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024644</id>
	<title>Re:Apple's "Security" Focus (or lack their of)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257671760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. If your Macbook is stolen, your data is compromised whether you have user auth on or not, since with an OS X install disk you can reset the admin password. Alternatively they can just boot it in firewire mode and mount the disk on another machine and take your data that way (or physically remove the HD). Unless you specifically set your keychain password to something other than your admin password this also means any password you store in there is compromised too. Are you suggesting that Macbooks ship with Filevault turned on? I would suggest that when you start a new user profile that it recommends that your keychain master password is different from your login password, but this is going to get in the way of a smooth user experience (which is a crummy reason to reduce security, but there is a balance between security and convenience that we all have to decide on) - by default the Mac is pretty open, but you can chose to enable the firewall, create different passwords for your keychain, run as a non-admin user etc etc as you see fit.</p><p>2. Yes, it should be on by default. I have no idea why it isn't.</p><p>3. The Apple TV is a bit of a special case - it should be updated to newer wireless standards, but I assume there is a technical reason why this is not so at the moment. Everything else on current Mac hardware on the wireless front (ie, anything that is g or better) supports at least WPA or WPA2 as well as the more esoteric WPA2 enterprise protocols as well as the less secure WEP stuff for compatibility. If you have an Apple TV on your network, you either need to drop to WEP or hook it up over ethernet - a problem that does need to be addressed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
If your Macbook is stolen , your data is compromised whether you have user auth on or not , since with an OS X install disk you can reset the admin password .
Alternatively they can just boot it in firewire mode and mount the disk on another machine and take your data that way ( or physically remove the HD ) .
Unless you specifically set your keychain password to something other than your admin password this also means any password you store in there is compromised too .
Are you suggesting that Macbooks ship with Filevault turned on ?
I would suggest that when you start a new user profile that it recommends that your keychain master password is different from your login password , but this is going to get in the way of a smooth user experience ( which is a crummy reason to reduce security , but there is a balance between security and convenience that we all have to decide on ) - by default the Mac is pretty open , but you can chose to enable the firewall , create different passwords for your keychain , run as a non-admin user etc etc as you see fit.2 .
Yes , it should be on by default .
I have no idea why it is n't.3 .
The Apple TV is a bit of a special case - it should be updated to newer wireless standards , but I assume there is a technical reason why this is not so at the moment .
Everything else on current Mac hardware on the wireless front ( ie , anything that is g or better ) supports at least WPA or WPA2 as well as the more esoteric WPA2 enterprise protocols as well as the less secure WEP stuff for compatibility .
If you have an Apple TV on your network , you either need to drop to WEP or hook it up over ethernet - a problem that does need to be addressed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
If your Macbook is stolen, your data is compromised whether you have user auth on or not, since with an OS X install disk you can reset the admin password.
Alternatively they can just boot it in firewire mode and mount the disk on another machine and take your data that way (or physically remove the HD).
Unless you specifically set your keychain password to something other than your admin password this also means any password you store in there is compromised too.
Are you suggesting that Macbooks ship with Filevault turned on?
I would suggest that when you start a new user profile that it recommends that your keychain master password is different from your login password, but this is going to get in the way of a smooth user experience (which is a crummy reason to reduce security, but there is a balance between security and convenience that we all have to decide on) - by default the Mac is pretty open, but you can chose to enable the firewall, create different passwords for your keychain, run as a non-admin user etc etc as you see fit.2.
Yes, it should be on by default.
I have no idea why it isn't.3.
The Apple TV is a bit of a special case - it should be updated to newer wireless standards, but I assume there is a technical reason why this is not so at the moment.
Everything else on current Mac hardware on the wireless front (ie, anything that is g or better) supports at least WPA or WPA2 as well as the more esoteric WPA2 enterprise protocols as well as the less secure WEP stuff for compatibility.
If you have an Apple TV on your network, you either need to drop to WEP or hook it up over ethernet - a problem that does need to be addressed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30033078</id>
	<title>Technical Support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257783300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nifty way to offer technical support to people who whine about something in the iTunes App Store, but never seek technical support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nifty way to offer technical support to people who whine about something in the iTunes App Store , but never seek technical support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nifty way to offer technical support to people who whine about something in the iTunes App Store, but never seek technical support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30030710</id>
	<title>Re:Big Surprise...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257766620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clueless post of the month</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clueless post of the month</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clueless post of the month</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023770</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30030772</id>
	<title>Contact info is the least of your problems.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257767460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An application installed on your iPhone "in principle" runs in its own sandbox, but it is quite possible to access, say, your photos.  I could write a game which uploaded all your personal photos to my website while you were playing it.</p><p>Apple does not check source code.  You provide a compiled binary for their review.  Accessing stuff outside of your application sandbox *may* get your app rejected, though.  I say *may*, because I wrote an iPhone game which used the standard wallpapers as a background.  Version 1.0 was accepted.  I added ad-support and made it free, resubmitted it as 1.1, and got rejected because I used "Apple copyrighted images".  Note that this part of the application wasn't changed at all from the 1.0, accepted version.  I pointed dout that the app didn't contain *copies* of those images at all, and that I simply accessed<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Library/Wallpapers (paraphrased).  After that, I got a mail from the reviewer saying it's not allowed to access data outside my apps sandbox, so it stayed rejected.  I then added a few photos to the installer from my own personal photo library and resubmitted.  The app then got accepted.</p><p>It would probably be a good idea if trying to upload data would trigger an end-user popup, just like accessing the current location (GPS coordinates) currently does.  If you hadn't just selected "upload my high-score to the internet", the pop-up would be suspicious and you'd reject it.</p><p>On the other hand, the app could simply upload your personal photos while pretending to upload your highscore.</p><p>A better solution would probably be to use POSIX permissions to make things unreadable by default, and use the "UAC-style popup" to grant specific permissions.  A photo editor which asks to read your camera roll makes sense, but some game probably doesn't have any business there.</p><p>Note: I'm not currently doing anything evil, apart from serving ads.  I realize that probably is evil enough for the people reading<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An application installed on your iPhone " in principle " runs in its own sandbox , but it is quite possible to access , say , your photos .
I could write a game which uploaded all your personal photos to my website while you were playing it.Apple does not check source code .
You provide a compiled binary for their review .
Accessing stuff outside of your application sandbox * may * get your app rejected , though .
I say * may * , because I wrote an iPhone game which used the standard wallpapers as a background .
Version 1.0 was accepted .
I added ad-support and made it free , resubmitted it as 1.1 , and got rejected because I used " Apple copyrighted images " .
Note that this part of the application was n't changed at all from the 1.0 , accepted version .
I pointed dout that the app did n't contain * copies * of those images at all , and that I simply accessed /Library/Wallpapers ( paraphrased ) .
After that , I got a mail from the reviewer saying it 's not allowed to access data outside my apps sandbox , so it stayed rejected .
I then added a few photos to the installer from my own personal photo library and resubmitted .
The app then got accepted.It would probably be a good idea if trying to upload data would trigger an end-user popup , just like accessing the current location ( GPS coordinates ) currently does .
If you had n't just selected " upload my high-score to the internet " , the pop-up would be suspicious and you 'd reject it.On the other hand , the app could simply upload your personal photos while pretending to upload your highscore.A better solution would probably be to use POSIX permissions to make things unreadable by default , and use the " UAC-style popup " to grant specific permissions .
A photo editor which asks to read your camera roll makes sense , but some game probably does n't have any business there.Note : I 'm not currently doing anything evil , apart from serving ads .
I realize that probably is evil enough for the people reading / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An application installed on your iPhone "in principle" runs in its own sandbox, but it is quite possible to access, say, your photos.
I could write a game which uploaded all your personal photos to my website while you were playing it.Apple does not check source code.
You provide a compiled binary for their review.
Accessing stuff outside of your application sandbox *may* get your app rejected, though.
I say *may*, because I wrote an iPhone game which used the standard wallpapers as a background.
Version 1.0 was accepted.
I added ad-support and made it free, resubmitted it as 1.1, and got rejected because I used "Apple copyrighted images".
Note that this part of the application wasn't changed at all from the 1.0, accepted version.
I pointed dout that the app didn't contain *copies* of those images at all, and that I simply accessed /Library/Wallpapers (paraphrased).
After that, I got a mail from the reviewer saying it's not allowed to access data outside my apps sandbox, so it stayed rejected.
I then added a few photos to the installer from my own personal photo library and resubmitted.
The app then got accepted.It would probably be a good idea if trying to upload data would trigger an end-user popup, just like accessing the current location (GPS coordinates) currently does.
If you hadn't just selected "upload my high-score to the internet", the pop-up would be suspicious and you'd reject it.On the other hand, the app could simply upload your personal photos while pretending to upload your highscore.A better solution would probably be to use POSIX permissions to make things unreadable by default, and use the "UAC-style popup" to grant specific permissions.
A photo editor which asks to read your camera roll makes sense, but some game probably doesn't have any business there.Note: I'm not currently doing anything evil, apart from serving ads.
I realize that probably is evil enough for the people reading /.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30026498</id>
	<title>Slashdot stole my IP!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257684120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh noes! My IP address is on the internets! Slashdot must have stoles it! Money please... I mean... lawsuit! Lawsuit!</p><p>Purchasing an application on a *mobile phone* - and then complaining that the purchaser knows who you are is, quite frankly, brutally retarded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh noes !
My IP address is on the internets !
Slashdot must have stoles it !
Money please... I mean... lawsuit ! Lawsuit ! Purchasing an application on a * mobile phone * - and then complaining that the purchaser knows who you are is , quite frankly , brutally retarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh noes!
My IP address is on the internets!
Slashdot must have stoles it!
Money please... I mean... lawsuit! Lawsuit!Purchasing an application on a *mobile phone* - and then complaining that the purchaser knows who you are is, quite frankly, brutally retarded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1352249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1352249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30025672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1352249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30027354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1352249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1352249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1352249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1352249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1352249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30034460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30025546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1352249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30025804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1352249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1352249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30025634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1352249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30026224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1352249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30033078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1352249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30025852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1352249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30031010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30025036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1352249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30026676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1352249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30028174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1352249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30030842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1352249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30030710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1352249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_1352249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30043454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1352249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1352249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30033078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1352249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30026676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30027354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30025036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30031010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1352249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024040
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30028174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1352249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024318
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1352249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30025546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30034460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30025804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1352249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1352249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30026608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1352249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30028808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1352249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30025672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30043454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30025634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30030710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024836
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1352249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30025852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_1352249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30023774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30026224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30024164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_1352249.30030842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
