<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_09_2340212</id>
	<title>In the UK, Big Brother Recedes and Advances</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1257762060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>PeterAitch writes <i>"The UK government's Home Office has <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/09/home-office-plan-data-storage">put a hold on their surveillance project</a> to track details of everybody's email, mobile phone, text, and Web use after being warned of problems with privacy as well as technical feasibility and high costs."</i> Four hours before the above Guardian story was filed, the BBC reported that the same Home Office insisted that it will push ahead with plans "to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk\_news/politics/8350660.stm">compel communication service providers to collect and retain records of communications</a> from a wider range of internet sources, from social networks through to chatrooms and unorthodox methods, such as within online games."</htmltext>
<tokenext>PeterAitch writes " The UK government 's Home Office has put a hold on their surveillance project to track details of everybody 's email , mobile phone , text , and Web use after being warned of problems with privacy as well as technical feasibility and high costs .
" Four hours before the above Guardian story was filed , the BBC reported that the same Home Office insisted that it will push ahead with plans " to compel communication service providers to collect and retain records of communications from a wider range of internet sources , from social networks through to chatrooms and unorthodox methods , such as within online games .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PeterAitch writes "The UK government's Home Office has put a hold on their surveillance project to track details of everybody's email, mobile phone, text, and Web use after being warned of problems with privacy as well as technical feasibility and high costs.
" Four hours before the above Guardian story was filed, the BBC reported that the same Home Office insisted that it will push ahead with plans "to compel communication service providers to collect and retain records of communications from a wider range of internet sources, from social networks through to chatrooms and unorthodox methods, such as within online games.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043822</id>
	<title>Making the difficult arguments</title>
	<author>AmiMoJo</author>
	<datestamp>1257853620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is very hard to object to this kind of thing, because no-one is against catching criminals and terrorists if it makes us safer, right?</p><p>The opposing arguments are hard to make because they rely on criticism of human nature and seemingly outlandish warnings of sleepwalking in to 1984. None the less, they must be made if we are to save ourselves.</p><p>Everyone has things to hide, and everyone needs privacy. You don't expect your bank statement on the back of a post card, you expect it hidden inside an envelope. Surely though the police should be allowed to monitor everything? The problem is that the police are human beings too and there are endless examples of them abusing their power.</p><p>My local MP (Sarah McArthy Fry) made the argument that internet surveillance had been used to prevent a suicide, and so was entirely justified. Harsh as it may seem, one life is not enough justification. If we banned cars we could save thousands of people from being killed or severely injured every year, but the bottom line is we consider the benefits of cars to outweigh those lives.</p><p>There is no perfect system, but there must be a balance between privacy and limiting the powers of those in authority on the one hand and prevention of crime on the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is very hard to object to this kind of thing , because no-one is against catching criminals and terrorists if it makes us safer , right ? The opposing arguments are hard to make because they rely on criticism of human nature and seemingly outlandish warnings of sleepwalking in to 1984 .
None the less , they must be made if we are to save ourselves.Everyone has things to hide , and everyone needs privacy .
You do n't expect your bank statement on the back of a post card , you expect it hidden inside an envelope .
Surely though the police should be allowed to monitor everything ?
The problem is that the police are human beings too and there are endless examples of them abusing their power.My local MP ( Sarah McArthy Fry ) made the argument that internet surveillance had been used to prevent a suicide , and so was entirely justified .
Harsh as it may seem , one life is not enough justification .
If we banned cars we could save thousands of people from being killed or severely injured every year , but the bottom line is we consider the benefits of cars to outweigh those lives.There is no perfect system , but there must be a balance between privacy and limiting the powers of those in authority on the one hand and prevention of crime on the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is very hard to object to this kind of thing, because no-one is against catching criminals and terrorists if it makes us safer, right?The opposing arguments are hard to make because they rely on criticism of human nature and seemingly outlandish warnings of sleepwalking in to 1984.
None the less, they must be made if we are to save ourselves.Everyone has things to hide, and everyone needs privacy.
You don't expect your bank statement on the back of a post card, you expect it hidden inside an envelope.
Surely though the police should be allowed to monitor everything?
The problem is that the police are human beings too and there are endless examples of them abusing their power.My local MP (Sarah McArthy Fry) made the argument that internet surveillance had been used to prevent a suicide, and so was entirely justified.
Harsh as it may seem, one life is not enough justification.
If we banned cars we could save thousands of people from being killed or severely injured every year, but the bottom line is we consider the benefits of cars to outweigh those lives.There is no perfect system, but there must be a balance between privacy and limiting the powers of those in authority on the one hand and prevention of crime on the other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044148</id>
	<title>Re:why? what is the point?</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1257857940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What would happen if all of the major UK ISPs sued, or outright refused to implement this monitoring system? Would they be fined? Would the Gov. be able to get them to pay?<br> <br>Would cutting the UK off from the rest of the world for a day (in protest) be an effective demonstration of how costly this would be?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What would happen if all of the major UK ISPs sued , or outright refused to implement this monitoring system ?
Would they be fined ?
Would the Gov .
be able to get them to pay ?
Would cutting the UK off from the rest of the world for a day ( in protest ) be an effective demonstration of how costly this would be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would happen if all of the major UK ISPs sued, or outright refused to implement this monitoring system?
Would they be fined?
Would the Gov.
be able to get them to pay?
Would cutting the UK off from the rest of the world for a day (in protest) be an effective demonstration of how costly this would be?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043812</id>
	<title>More jobs!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257853440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is good news, because it creates more jobs so that half the people in the UK can watch the other half all the time, and then they swap over every so often.</p><p>No one will be without a job then, and we solve the terrorist problem in one shot!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is good news , because it creates more jobs so that half the people in the UK can watch the other half all the time , and then they swap over every so often.No one will be without a job then , and we solve the terrorist problem in one shot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is good news, because it creates more jobs so that half the people in the UK can watch the other half all the time, and then they swap over every so often.No one will be without a job then, and we solve the terrorist problem in one shot!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043958</id>
	<title>You EUians are lucky.</title>
	<author>benchbri</author>
	<datestamp>1257855540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're going to be brought down by what you hate. We Yanks are going to be brought down by what we love, and we'll merrily go along with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're going to be brought down by what you hate .
We Yanks are going to be brought down by what we love , and we 'll merrily go along with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're going to be brought down by what you hate.
We Yanks are going to be brought down by what we love, and we'll merrily go along with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044206</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Brittish friends, why do you want Stasi?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257858840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Used to live in Britain, now I don't. This is one of the reasons. I actually moved out of the EU with this in mind.</p><p>I do not know anyone who wants this.</p><p>I see idiot politicians on TV and read their interviews and statements on this in the news that this will be the best thing since sliced bread, it seems to me they are trying to repeat the lie often enough for it to become perceived as truth. In the UK they blame the EU for these sort of things, whilst it appears that the UK government is one of the main backers behind this (probably because they want to have it rubber-stamped through parliament rather than have to explain to the electorate). Actually, the UK often goes for the whole hog when an EU-directive comes around that threatens the integrity of the individual. Funny that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Used to live in Britain , now I do n't .
This is one of the reasons .
I actually moved out of the EU with this in mind.I do not know anyone who wants this.I see idiot politicians on TV and read their interviews and statements on this in the news that this will be the best thing since sliced bread , it seems to me they are trying to repeat the lie often enough for it to become perceived as truth .
In the UK they blame the EU for these sort of things , whilst it appears that the UK government is one of the main backers behind this ( probably because they want to have it rubber-stamped through parliament rather than have to explain to the electorate ) .
Actually , the UK often goes for the whole hog when an EU-directive comes around that threatens the integrity of the individual .
Funny that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Used to live in Britain, now I don't.
This is one of the reasons.
I actually moved out of the EU with this in mind.I do not know anyone who wants this.I see idiot politicians on TV and read their interviews and statements on this in the news that this will be the best thing since sliced bread, it seems to me they are trying to repeat the lie often enough for it to become perceived as truth.
In the UK they blame the EU for these sort of things, whilst it appears that the UK government is one of the main backers behind this (probably because they want to have it rubber-stamped through parliament rather than have to explain to the electorate).
Actually, the UK often goes for the whole hog when an EU-directive comes around that threatens the integrity of the individual.
Funny that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30045206</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait till they ban all encryption.</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1257866760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They already made it illegal in the UK to refuse to decrypt something they think is encrypted...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They already made it illegal in the UK to refuse to decrypt something they think is encrypted.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already made it illegal in the UK to refuse to decrypt something they think is encrypted...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044372</id>
	<title>ho80</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257860580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>could sink your say I'm packing in posting a GNAA balance is struck, joi8 in especially All servers. Com1ng these rules will successes with the</htmltext>
<tokenext>could sink your say I 'm packing in posting a GNAA balance is struck , joi8 in especially All servers .
Com1ng these rules will successes with the</tokentext>
<sentencetext>could sink your say I'm packing in posting a GNAA balance is struck, joi8 in especially All servers.
Com1ng these rules will successes with the</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30046540</id>
	<title>Re:The cat is out of the bag</title>
	<author>makomk</author>
	<datestamp>1257872760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Certain shock images can also get you a jail sentence here in the UK (Goatse, for example). We have the tabloid press and anti-porn feminists to thank for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Certain shock images can also get you a jail sentence here in the UK ( Goatse , for example ) .
We have the tabloid press and anti-porn feminists to thank for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Certain shock images can also get you a jail sentence here in the UK (Goatse, for example).
We have the tabloid press and anti-porn feminists to thank for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044052</id>
	<title>Tagging</title>
	<author>Jaysyn</author>
	<datestamp>1257856860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>New tag for British / Big Brother stories = AirStripOne.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>New tag for British / Big Brother stories = AirStripOne .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>New tag for British / Big Brother stories = AirStripOne.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30049430</id>
	<title>Re:More jobs!</title>
	<author>Criton</author>
	<datestamp>1257882720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>True I expect the UK economy to collapse under the weight of it's security apparatus much like the East German government did.
As for the terrorist problem crunch the numbers the chances of getting killed by one are vanishingly small.
You are more likely to die falling in the shower or making toast.
Bird strikes are no less then 27 times more likely to take out an aircraft then a bomb so lets go after those evil birds.
It's a classic case of risk distortion by the media.</htmltext>
<tokenext>True I expect the UK economy to collapse under the weight of it 's security apparatus much like the East German government did .
As for the terrorist problem crunch the numbers the chances of getting killed by one are vanishingly small .
You are more likely to die falling in the shower or making toast .
Bird strikes are no less then 27 times more likely to take out an aircraft then a bomb so lets go after those evil birds .
It 's a classic case of risk distortion by the media .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True I expect the UK economy to collapse under the weight of it's security apparatus much like the East German government did.
As for the terrorist problem crunch the numbers the chances of getting killed by one are vanishingly small.
You are more likely to die falling in the shower or making toast.
Bird strikes are no less then 27 times more likely to take out an aircraft then a bomb so lets go after those evil birds.
It's a classic case of risk distortion by the media.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044142</id>
	<title>Guardian got it wrong</title>
	<author>ChiefMonkeyGrinder</author>
	<datestamp>1257857880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It appears the Guardian has just parsed the legislative process in a strange way to make it look like the Home Office has changed its position when it in fact hasn't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It appears the Guardian has just parsed the legislative process in a strange way to make it look like the Home Office has changed its position when it in fact has n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It appears the Guardian has just parsed the legislative process in a strange way to make it look like the Home Office has changed its position when it in fact hasn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043844</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Brittish friends, why do you want Stasi?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257853860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quite simply, we don't. It's just that we have no say in how the country is run. Oh sure, there are those election things, but when there are only two parties and neither is any good, it doesn't really matter who is in power - both sides want to do this kind of thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite simply , we do n't .
It 's just that we have no say in how the country is run .
Oh sure , there are those election things , but when there are only two parties and neither is any good , it does n't really matter who is in power - both sides want to do this kind of thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite simply, we don't.
It's just that we have no say in how the country is run.
Oh sure, there are those election things, but when there are only two parties and neither is any good, it doesn't really matter who is in power - both sides want to do this kind of thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043880</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Brittish friends, why do you want Stasi?</title>
	<author>sakdoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1257854460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You dumb ass. Nobody wants this.<br>Nobody, (well perhaps Carol Vorderman) wrote to their MP and said "Gief me digital police state pl0z!?"</p><p>Governments suck up all the power they can get, limited only by technology and democratic checks and balances. We are all in this together, because the cancer tends to spread.<br>Some little bastards in your own government are looking over the deployment of the Chinese firewall right now, and saying "Yeah, that's cool. That could work here too."<br>Regardless of race and nationality, if you like your rights online, then censorship and mass surveillance can not be tolerated to exist. Anywhere.</p><p>Thankfully god wants us to be free. Which is why he gave to Moses, a stone tablet containing reference implementations of various public-key cryptography schemes, licensed under the GPL. At least that's how remember it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You dumb ass .
Nobody wants this.Nobody , ( well perhaps Carol Vorderman ) wrote to their MP and said " Gief me digital police state pl0z ! ?
" Governments suck up all the power they can get , limited only by technology and democratic checks and balances .
We are all in this together , because the cancer tends to spread.Some little bastards in your own government are looking over the deployment of the Chinese firewall right now , and saying " Yeah , that 's cool .
That could work here too .
" Regardless of race and nationality , if you like your rights online , then censorship and mass surveillance can not be tolerated to exist .
Anywhere.Thankfully god wants us to be free .
Which is why he gave to Moses , a stone tablet containing reference implementations of various public-key cryptography schemes , licensed under the GPL .
At least that 's how remember it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You dumb ass.
Nobody wants this.Nobody, (well perhaps Carol Vorderman) wrote to their MP and said "Gief me digital police state pl0z!?
"Governments suck up all the power they can get, limited only by technology and democratic checks and balances.
We are all in this together, because the cancer tends to spread.Some little bastards in your own government are looking over the deployment of the Chinese firewall right now, and saying "Yeah, that's cool.
That could work here too.
"Regardless of race and nationality, if you like your rights online, then censorship and mass surveillance can not be tolerated to exist.
Anywhere.Thankfully god wants us to be free.
Which is why he gave to Moses, a stone tablet containing reference implementations of various public-key cryptography schemes, licensed under the GPL.
At least that's how remember it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043820</id>
	<title>Whatever happened to privacy?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257853620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who wants to live under these circumstances were you are constantly being under surveillance and apparently mistrusted by your own, elected?, government?</p><p>This kingdom i not free any more, it is time to abandon these islands<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who wants to live under these circumstances were you are constantly being under surveillance and apparently mistrusted by your own , elected ? , government ? This kingdom i not free any more , it is time to abandon these islands . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who wants to live under these circumstances were you are constantly being under surveillance and apparently mistrusted by your own, elected?, government?This kingdom i not free any more, it is time to abandon these islands ..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044730</id>
	<title>Re:More jobs!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257863880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great ! 6 months vacation per year !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great !
6 months vacation per year !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great !
6 months vacation per year !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044382</id>
	<title>Re:Making the difficult arguments</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1257860700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way to argument against it is actually to argument for <b>more</b> and <b>deeper</b> intrusions. Take the argument to it's most extreme logical conclusion. For example:</p><blockquote><div><p>My local MP (Sarah McArthy Fry) made the argument that internet surveillance had been used to prevent a suicide, and so was entirely justified.</p></div></blockquote><p>Easy counter argument: demand even more and deeper privacy intrusions.</p><p>For example:<br>"I completely agree with and applaud this action: human life should be cherished and protected at all costs.</p><p>Also, lets not forget that every year hundreds of people die as a result of accident or even suicide in their own homes, including children and vulnerable senior citizens.</p><p>We cannot stand idle while this happens!</p><p>I propose that CCTV surveillance inside private homes becomes <b>mandatory</b> with the video streams available via the Internet to anybody that cares to watch them: let's harness the powers of technology and the crowds to prevent this needless loss of human life that is happening, right now, behind closed doors.</p><p>I proposed our esteemed MP Sarah McArthy Fry, whose understanding of the importance of human life is beyond doubt, to serve as an example to us all and be the first person enrolled in this project"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The way to argument against it is actually to argument for more and deeper intrusions .
Take the argument to it 's most extreme logical conclusion .
For example : My local MP ( Sarah McArthy Fry ) made the argument that internet surveillance had been used to prevent a suicide , and so was entirely justified.Easy counter argument : demand even more and deeper privacy intrusions.For example : " I completely agree with and applaud this action : human life should be cherished and protected at all costs.Also , lets not forget that every year hundreds of people die as a result of accident or even suicide in their own homes , including children and vulnerable senior citizens.We can not stand idle while this happens ! I propose that CCTV surveillance inside private homes becomes mandatory with the video streams available via the Internet to anybody that cares to watch them : let 's harness the powers of technology and the crowds to prevent this needless loss of human life that is happening , right now , behind closed doors.I proposed our esteemed MP Sarah McArthy Fry , whose understanding of the importance of human life is beyond doubt , to serve as an example to us all and be the first person enrolled in this project "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way to argument against it is actually to argument for more and deeper intrusions.
Take the argument to it's most extreme logical conclusion.
For example:My local MP (Sarah McArthy Fry) made the argument that internet surveillance had been used to prevent a suicide, and so was entirely justified.Easy counter argument: demand even more and deeper privacy intrusions.For example:"I completely agree with and applaud this action: human life should be cherished and protected at all costs.Also, lets not forget that every year hundreds of people die as a result of accident or even suicide in their own homes, including children and vulnerable senior citizens.We cannot stand idle while this happens!I propose that CCTV surveillance inside private homes becomes mandatory with the video streams available via the Internet to anybody that cares to watch them: let's harness the powers of technology and the crowds to prevent this needless loss of human life that is happening, right now, behind closed doors.I proposed our esteemed MP Sarah McArthy Fry, whose understanding of the importance of human life is beyond doubt, to serve as an example to us all and be the first person enrolled in this project"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044226</id>
	<title>Either scum or too stupid</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1257859020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>after being warned of problems with privacy as well as technical feasibility and high costs</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

"Being warned of problems with privacy?" Ya.... think?! That's either a nice way of saying that they bowed out of it due to public pressure or they are such blithering incompetents that it never occurred to them that this could harm anyone's privacy. Either way, the British need to wake TFU and bring this regime down. It's an embarrassment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>after being warned of problems with privacy as well as technical feasibility and high costs " Being warned of problems with privacy ?
" Ya... .
think ? ! That 's either a nice way of saying that they bowed out of it due to public pressure or they are such blithering incompetents that it never occurred to them that this could harm anyone 's privacy .
Either way , the British need to wake TFU and bring this regime down .
It 's an embarrassment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>after being warned of problems with privacy as well as technical feasibility and high costs


"Being warned of problems with privacy?
" Ya....
think?! That's either a nice way of saying that they bowed out of it due to public pressure or they are such blithering incompetents that it never occurred to them that this could harm anyone's privacy.
Either way, the British need to wake TFU and bring this regime down.
It's an embarrassment.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30049632</id>
	<title>Re:The often forgot non-privacy risk</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1257883620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>That they're getting too much noise from creating a too indiscriminate collection of information, thereby shooting the signal-to-noise ratio through the roof?</i> <br> <br>What's "signal" and what's "noise" depends very much on exactly who is looking at the data.<br> <br> <i>I understand if it looks good on paper from a security perspective, but what about a practical standpoint? To me, this feels more and more like something that is bad both from a privacy perspective and in practice.</i> <br> <br>Assuming the actual intent is better law enforcement. Even on paper mass interception is a poor approach.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That they 're getting too much noise from creating a too indiscriminate collection of information , thereby shooting the signal-to-noise ratio through the roof ?
What 's " signal " and what 's " noise " depends very much on exactly who is looking at the data .
I understand if it looks good on paper from a security perspective , but what about a practical standpoint ?
To me , this feels more and more like something that is bad both from a privacy perspective and in practice .
Assuming the actual intent is better law enforcement .
Even on paper mass interception is a poor approach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That they're getting too much noise from creating a too indiscriminate collection of information, thereby shooting the signal-to-noise ratio through the roof?
What's "signal" and what's "noise" depends very much on exactly who is looking at the data.
I understand if it looks good on paper from a security perspective, but what about a practical standpoint?
To me, this feels more and more like something that is bad both from a privacy perspective and in practice.
Assuming the actual intent is better law enforcement.
Even on paper mass interception is a poor approach.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30049452</id>
	<title>Re:How?</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1257882840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I talked to the government about this. The question I put to them was 'How?'.
It's pretty easy to install a secure private network - with any form of transport to go over it including voip, mail, irc, what-have-you.</i> <br> <br>It's not required for the "bad guys" to use "The Internet" in the first place or even to use it in the "expected way".<br>Mass snooping is effectivly a "movie plot" approach. If the actual aim is to catch criminals then you need regular "detectives", if only to work out who and what needs spying on...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I talked to the government about this .
The question I put to them was 'How ? ' .
It 's pretty easy to install a secure private network - with any form of transport to go over it including voip , mail , irc , what-have-you .
It 's not required for the " bad guys " to use " The Internet " in the first place or even to use it in the " expected way " .Mass snooping is effectivly a " movie plot " approach .
If the actual aim is to catch criminals then you need regular " detectives " , if only to work out who and what needs spying on.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I talked to the government about this.
The question I put to them was 'How?'.
It's pretty easy to install a secure private network - with any form of transport to go over it including voip, mail, irc, what-have-you.
It's not required for the "bad guys" to use "The Internet" in the first place or even to use it in the "expected way".Mass snooping is effectivly a "movie plot" approach.
If the actual aim is to catch criminals then you need regular "detectives", if only to work out who and what needs spying on...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30045250</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Brittish friends, why do you want Stasi?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1257866940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Er, I'm from Britain, and I don't want this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Er , I 'm from Britain , and I do n't want this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Er, I'm from Britain, and I don't want this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30049524</id>
	<title>Re:Making the difficult arguments</title>
	<author>Criton</author>
	<datestamp>1257883080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also said surveillance may have ruined the lives of 20 innocent people before preventing that suicide and drove five of them to suicide.
Surveillance societies have very high suicide rates and police brutality rates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also said surveillance may have ruined the lives of 20 innocent people before preventing that suicide and drove five of them to suicide .
Surveillance societies have very high suicide rates and police brutality rates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also said surveillance may have ruined the lives of 20 innocent people before preventing that suicide and drove five of them to suicide.
Surveillance societies have very high suicide rates and police brutality rates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044918</id>
	<title>Re:The often forgot non-privacy risk</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1257865200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, amusingly the same day they backtracked on this, they also ruled that intercepted data does not have to be stored in an encrypted form.</p><p>The whole thing is a fucking nightmare. The inland revenue service lost the personal details of 25 million people in the UK not so long ago, there have been hundreds more large scale (multi-million victim) data leaks since then and they expect us to now trust them to store all our personal contact data and suggest they don't even need to encrypt it?</p><p>Labour government IT is a complete and utter catastrophe with not a single lesson learnt from the constant stream of mistakes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , amusingly the same day they backtracked on this , they also ruled that intercepted data does not have to be stored in an encrypted form.The whole thing is a fucking nightmare .
The inland revenue service lost the personal details of 25 million people in the UK not so long ago , there have been hundreds more large scale ( multi-million victim ) data leaks since then and they expect us to now trust them to store all our personal contact data and suggest they do n't even need to encrypt it ? Labour government IT is a complete and utter catastrophe with not a single lesson learnt from the constant stream of mistakes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, amusingly the same day they backtracked on this, they also ruled that intercepted data does not have to be stored in an encrypted form.The whole thing is a fucking nightmare.
The inland revenue service lost the personal details of 25 million people in the UK not so long ago, there have been hundreds more large scale (multi-million victim) data leaks since then and they expect us to now trust them to store all our personal contact data and suggest they don't even need to encrypt it?Labour government IT is a complete and utter catastrophe with not a single lesson learnt from the constant stream of mistakes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30045354</id>
	<title>Re:How?</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1257867540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My mail server encrypts, indeed - many these days do. Debian's Postfix package uses opportunistic encryption by default. I've recently been contacted by an insurer who wants mandatory encryption between our mail server and theirs.</p><p>The mail from the PC is encrypted to the outbound server. Then the mail from one MX is encrypted to the next, and the end user is using IMAP over SSL. It's going to make snooping email very difficult, especially as more and more MTAs have opportunistic encryption on by default, and mail providers use IMAPS/POP3S by default, and submission (authenticated SMTP on port 587 with TLS) for sending by default.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My mail server encrypts , indeed - many these days do .
Debian 's Postfix package uses opportunistic encryption by default .
I 've recently been contacted by an insurer who wants mandatory encryption between our mail server and theirs.The mail from the PC is encrypted to the outbound server .
Then the mail from one MX is encrypted to the next , and the end user is using IMAP over SSL .
It 's going to make snooping email very difficult , especially as more and more MTAs have opportunistic encryption on by default , and mail providers use IMAPS/POP3S by default , and submission ( authenticated SMTP on port 587 with TLS ) for sending by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My mail server encrypts, indeed - many these days do.
Debian's Postfix package uses opportunistic encryption by default.
I've recently been contacted by an insurer who wants mandatory encryption between our mail server and theirs.The mail from the PC is encrypted to the outbound server.
Then the mail from one MX is encrypted to the next, and the end user is using IMAP over SSL.
It's going to make snooping email very difficult, especially as more and more MTAs have opportunistic encryption on by default, and mail providers use IMAPS/POP3S by default, and submission (authenticated SMTP on port 587 with TLS) for sending by default.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30049290</id>
	<title>Re:why? what is the point?</title>
	<author>Criton</author>
	<datestamp>1257882180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I was a provider I would rather cut off the UK then implement their monitoring system.
It is a slippery slope and a lot of historical examples come to mind esp in the former communist countries.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I was a provider I would rather cut off the UK then implement their monitoring system .
It is a slippery slope and a lot of historical examples come to mind esp in the former communist countries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I was a provider I would rather cut off the UK then implement their monitoring system.
It is a slippery slope and a lot of historical examples come to mind esp in the former communist countries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043954</id>
	<title>Global channels in games?</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1257855480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're going to have fun sifting through<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Trade chat trying to work out if "Anal [Terror] LOL" is a secret code...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're going to have fun sifting through /Trade chat trying to work out if " Anal [ Terror ] LOL " is a secret code.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're going to have fun sifting through /Trade chat trying to work out if "Anal [Terror] LOL" is a secret code...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043898</id>
	<title>failzo85</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257854760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>needs OS. now BSDI</htmltext>
<tokenext>needs OS .
now BSDI</tokentext>
<sentencetext>needs OS.
now BSDI</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044028</id>
	<title>Can just see it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257856380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Little Billy logs into CS.</p><p>2. "LoL N00bs Terorist5 p0wn"</p><p>3. Crash. Bang!</p><p>4. No profit (apart from the politician who can claim another terror attack stopped and hostages saved...).</p><p>Or maybe:</p><p>@terrorist twitted 10 minutes ago - off to blow up infidels. BRB.</p><p>Or even:</p><p>EmEYeFive has joined</p><p>EmEYeFive: sup all. ASL&amp;Religion</p><p>mohamed: 25,male,London,muslim</p><p>EmEYeFive: You'll do. IM me your address.</p><p>In soviet UK government terrorizes you...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Little Billy logs into CS.2 .
" LoL N00bs Terorist5 p0wn " 3 .
Crash. Bang ! 4 .
No profit ( apart from the politician who can claim another terror attack stopped and hostages saved... ) .Or maybe : @ terrorist twitted 10 minutes ago - off to blow up infidels .
BRB.Or even : EmEYeFive has joinedEmEYeFive : sup all .
ASL&amp;Religionmohamed : 25,male,London,muslimEmEYeFive : You 'll do .
IM me your address.In soviet UK government terrorizes you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Little Billy logs into CS.2.
"LoL N00bs Terorist5 p0wn"3.
Crash. Bang!4.
No profit (apart from the politician who can claim another terror attack stopped and hostages saved...).Or maybe:@terrorist twitted 10 minutes ago - off to blow up infidels.
BRB.Or even:EmEYeFive has joinedEmEYeFive: sup all.
ASL&amp;Religionmohamed: 25,male,London,muslimEmEYeFive: You'll do.
IM me your address.In soviet UK government terrorizes you...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30052900</id>
	<title>Re:why? what is the point?</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1257853740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"could someone please seriously enlighten me as to why the UK government believes this has a chance of succeeding?"</p><p>Right on.  They should just do what the NSA seems to be planning to do in the U.S and record all traffic on the Internet backbones.  Then you get everything and don't have to hassle with making all the ISP's be your reluctant spies.  Why else do you think the NSA is building new multibillion dollar facilities in Utah and Texas with yetabytes of storage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" could someone please seriously enlighten me as to why the UK government believes this has a chance of succeeding ?
" Right on .
They should just do what the NSA seems to be planning to do in the U.S and record all traffic on the Internet backbones .
Then you get everything and do n't have to hassle with making all the ISP 's be your reluctant spies .
Why else do you think the NSA is building new multibillion dollar facilities in Utah and Texas with yetabytes of storage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"could someone please seriously enlighten me as to why the UK government believes this has a chance of succeeding?
"Right on.
They should just do what the NSA seems to be planning to do in the U.S and record all traffic on the Internet backbones.
Then you get everything and don't have to hassle with making all the ISP's be your reluctant spies.
Why else do you think the NSA is building new multibillion dollar facilities in Utah and Texas with yetabytes of storage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30045428</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait till they ban all encryption.</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1257867900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, it's against the laws of thermodynamics to be able to brute force AES-256 for a start. If there were exploitable weaknesses in the algorithm, given that there are open source AES-256 implementations, it would not be possible to keep them quiet. This leaves brute forcing. (Of course, people can choose bad passphrases, but most who go to the bother of using AES-256 will probably use something decent)</p><p><a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/the\_doghouse\_cr.html" title="schneier.com">http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/the\_doghouse\_cr.html</a> [schneier.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>One of the consequences of the second law of thermodynamics is that a certain amount of energy is necessary to represent information. To record a single bit by changing the state of a system requires an amount of energy no less than kT, where T is the absolute temperature of the system and k is the Boltzman constant. (Stick with me; the physics lesson is almost over.)</p><p>Given that k = 1.38&#215;10-16 erg/Kelvin, and that the ambient temperature of the universe is 3.2Kelvin, an ideal computer running at 3.2K would consume 4.4&#215;10-16 ergs every time it set or cleared a bit. To run a computer any colder than the cosmic background radiation would require extra energy to run a heat pump.</p><p>Now, the annual energy output of our sun is about 1.21&#215;1041 ergs. This is enough to power about 2.7&#215;1056 single bit changes on our ideal computer; enough state changes to put a 187-bit counter through all its values. If we built a Dyson sphere around the sun and captured all its energy for 32 years, without any loss, we could power a computer to count up to 2192. Of course, it wouldn't have the energy left over to perform any useful calculations with this counter.</p><p>But that's just one star, and a measly one at that. A typical supernova releases something like 1051 ergs. (About a hundred times as much energy would be released in the form of neutrinos, but let them go for now.) If all of this energy could be channeled into a single orgy of computation, a 219-bit counter could be cycled through all of its states.</p><p>These numbers have nothing to do with the technology of the devices; they are the maximums that thermodynamics will allow. <b>And they strongly imply that brute-force attacks against 256-bit keys will be infeasible until computers are built from something other than matter and occupy something other than space.</b></p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's against the laws of thermodynamics to be able to brute force AES-256 for a start .
If there were exploitable weaknesses in the algorithm , given that there are open source AES-256 implementations , it would not be possible to keep them quiet .
This leaves brute forcing .
( Of course , people can choose bad passphrases , but most who go to the bother of using AES-256 will probably use something decent ) http : //www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/the \ _doghouse \ _cr.html [ schneier.com ] One of the consequences of the second law of thermodynamics is that a certain amount of energy is necessary to represent information .
To record a single bit by changing the state of a system requires an amount of energy no less than kT , where T is the absolute temperature of the system and k is the Boltzman constant .
( Stick with me ; the physics lesson is almost over .
) Given that k = 1.38   10-16 erg/Kelvin , and that the ambient temperature of the universe is 3.2Kelvin , an ideal computer running at 3.2K would consume 4.4   10-16 ergs every time it set or cleared a bit .
To run a computer any colder than the cosmic background radiation would require extra energy to run a heat pump.Now , the annual energy output of our sun is about 1.21   1041 ergs .
This is enough to power about 2.7   1056 single bit changes on our ideal computer ; enough state changes to put a 187-bit counter through all its values .
If we built a Dyson sphere around the sun and captured all its energy for 32 years , without any loss , we could power a computer to count up to 2192 .
Of course , it would n't have the energy left over to perform any useful calculations with this counter.But that 's just one star , and a measly one at that .
A typical supernova releases something like 1051 ergs .
( About a hundred times as much energy would be released in the form of neutrinos , but let them go for now .
) If all of this energy could be channeled into a single orgy of computation , a 219-bit counter could be cycled through all of its states.These numbers have nothing to do with the technology of the devices ; they are the maximums that thermodynamics will allow .
And they strongly imply that brute-force attacks against 256-bit keys will be infeasible until computers are built from something other than matter and occupy something other than space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's against the laws of thermodynamics to be able to brute force AES-256 for a start.
If there were exploitable weaknesses in the algorithm, given that there are open source AES-256 implementations, it would not be possible to keep them quiet.
This leaves brute forcing.
(Of course, people can choose bad passphrases, but most who go to the bother of using AES-256 will probably use something decent)http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/09/the\_doghouse\_cr.html [schneier.com] One of the consequences of the second law of thermodynamics is that a certain amount of energy is necessary to represent information.
To record a single bit by changing the state of a system requires an amount of energy no less than kT, where T is the absolute temperature of the system and k is the Boltzman constant.
(Stick with me; the physics lesson is almost over.
)Given that k = 1.38×10-16 erg/Kelvin, and that the ambient temperature of the universe is 3.2Kelvin, an ideal computer running at 3.2K would consume 4.4×10-16 ergs every time it set or cleared a bit.
To run a computer any colder than the cosmic background radiation would require extra energy to run a heat pump.Now, the annual energy output of our sun is about 1.21×1041 ergs.
This is enough to power about 2.7×1056 single bit changes on our ideal computer; enough state changes to put a 187-bit counter through all its values.
If we built a Dyson sphere around the sun and captured all its energy for 32 years, without any loss, we could power a computer to count up to 2192.
Of course, it wouldn't have the energy left over to perform any useful calculations with this counter.But that's just one star, and a measly one at that.
A typical supernova releases something like 1051 ergs.
(About a hundred times as much energy would be released in the form of neutrinos, but let them go for now.
) If all of this energy could be channeled into a single orgy of computation, a 219-bit counter could be cycled through all of its states.These numbers have nothing to do with the technology of the devices; they are the maximums that thermodynamics will allow.
And they strongly imply that brute-force attacks against 256-bit keys will be infeasible until computers are built from something other than matter and occupy something other than space.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044072</id>
	<title>The often forgot non-privacy risk</title>
	<author>Jugalator</author>
	<datestamp>1257857100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't there a problem besides the privacy concern here. That they're getting too much noise from creating a too indiscriminate collection of information, thereby shooting the signal-to-noise ratio through the roof? I understand if it looks good on paper from a security perspective, but what about a practical standpoint? To me, this feels more and more like something that is bad both from a privacy perspective <i>and</i> in practice.</p><p>Besides, their analyzed tubes will sure get noisy as wireless connections keep getting more common in society, along with their encrypted connections.</p><p>And which terrorist, pedophile or what-have-you with a brain using the Internet to communicate do so over unencrypted social networks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't there a problem besides the privacy concern here .
That they 're getting too much noise from creating a too indiscriminate collection of information , thereby shooting the signal-to-noise ratio through the roof ?
I understand if it looks good on paper from a security perspective , but what about a practical standpoint ?
To me , this feels more and more like something that is bad both from a privacy perspective and in practice.Besides , their analyzed tubes will sure get noisy as wireless connections keep getting more common in society , along with their encrypted connections.And which terrorist , pedophile or what-have-you with a brain using the Internet to communicate do so over unencrypted social networks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't there a problem besides the privacy concern here.
That they're getting too much noise from creating a too indiscriminate collection of information, thereby shooting the signal-to-noise ratio through the roof?
I understand if it looks good on paper from a security perspective, but what about a practical standpoint?
To me, this feels more and more like something that is bad both from a privacy perspective and in practice.Besides, their analyzed tubes will sure get noisy as wireless connections keep getting more common in society, along with their encrypted connections.And which terrorist, pedophile or what-have-you with a brain using the Internet to communicate do so over unencrypted social networks?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30045230</id>
	<title>Re:Making the difficult arguments</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1257866880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It is very hard to object to this kind of thing, because no-one is against catching criminals and terrorists if it makes us safer, right?</i> <br> <br>Only if you subscribe to the same false dichotomy as the advocates of such things. It's very questionable if mass snooping does much at all to help catch criminals. That's before even considering that criminals <b>will,</b> gain access to such data if it can be used in any way for criminal activities. <br> <br>Surely though the police should be allowed to monitor everything? <br> <br>No they need to investigate criminals. Unless their activities are properly supervised the last people they are going to be interested in are dangerous criminals.<br> <br> <i>The problem is that the police are human beings too and there are endless examples of them abusing their power.</i> <br> <br>This abuse also includes making themselves "look busy". Given a choice between dealing with a dangerous criminal gang and a peaceful political group the average police officer is likely to choose the latter. Which is why it's important to not give the police such a choice. Another kind of abuse is certain criminals being ignored because of <b>who</b> they are. e.g. police officers and MPs.<br> <br> <i>My local MP (Sarah McArthy Fry) made the argument that internet surveillance had been used to prevent a suicide, and so was entirely justified. Harsh as it may seem, one life is not enough justification.</i> <br> <br>How many suicides might result from people being spied on? This is something the likes of McArthy Fry tend to ignore.<br> <br> <i>If we banned cars we could save thousands of people from being killed or severely injured every year, but the bottom line is we consider the benefits of cars to outweigh those lives.</i> <br> <br>Also there is no way in which banning cars is likely to cause car "accidents". There are also likely to be many things other than banning to make car driving safer (not all of which will be politically correct, however).</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is very hard to object to this kind of thing , because no-one is against catching criminals and terrorists if it makes us safer , right ?
Only if you subscribe to the same false dichotomy as the advocates of such things .
It 's very questionable if mass snooping does much at all to help catch criminals .
That 's before even considering that criminals will , gain access to such data if it can be used in any way for criminal activities .
Surely though the police should be allowed to monitor everything ?
No they need to investigate criminals .
Unless their activities are properly supervised the last people they are going to be interested in are dangerous criminals .
The problem is that the police are human beings too and there are endless examples of them abusing their power .
This abuse also includes making themselves " look busy " .
Given a choice between dealing with a dangerous criminal gang and a peaceful political group the average police officer is likely to choose the latter .
Which is why it 's important to not give the police such a choice .
Another kind of abuse is certain criminals being ignored because of who they are .
e.g. police officers and MPs .
My local MP ( Sarah McArthy Fry ) made the argument that internet surveillance had been used to prevent a suicide , and so was entirely justified .
Harsh as it may seem , one life is not enough justification .
How many suicides might result from people being spied on ?
This is something the likes of McArthy Fry tend to ignore .
If we banned cars we could save thousands of people from being killed or severely injured every year , but the bottom line is we consider the benefits of cars to outweigh those lives .
Also there is no way in which banning cars is likely to cause car " accidents " .
There are also likely to be many things other than banning to make car driving safer ( not all of which will be politically correct , however ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is very hard to object to this kind of thing, because no-one is against catching criminals and terrorists if it makes us safer, right?
Only if you subscribe to the same false dichotomy as the advocates of such things.
It's very questionable if mass snooping does much at all to help catch criminals.
That's before even considering that criminals will, gain access to such data if it can be used in any way for criminal activities.
Surely though the police should be allowed to monitor everything?
No they need to investigate criminals.
Unless their activities are properly supervised the last people they are going to be interested in are dangerous criminals.
The problem is that the police are human beings too and there are endless examples of them abusing their power.
This abuse also includes making themselves "look busy".
Given a choice between dealing with a dangerous criminal gang and a peaceful political group the average police officer is likely to choose the latter.
Which is why it's important to not give the police such a choice.
Another kind of abuse is certain criminals being ignored because of who they are.
e.g. police officers and MPs.
My local MP (Sarah McArthy Fry) made the argument that internet surveillance had been used to prevent a suicide, and so was entirely justified.
Harsh as it may seem, one life is not enough justification.
How many suicides might result from people being spied on?
This is something the likes of McArthy Fry tend to ignore.
If we banned cars we could save thousands of people from being killed or severely injured every year, but the bottom line is we consider the benefits of cars to outweigh those lives.
Also there is no way in which banning cars is likely to cause car "accidents".
There are also likely to be many things other than banning to make car driving safer (not all of which will be politically correct, however).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30057148</id>
	<title>Re:why? what is the point?</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1257106200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really glad they scrapped the central email/phone call logging system, there really
was no way they good do that for just 2Billion, and the UK is strapped for cash at
the minute, no put wasting money on surviellance that doesn't work. Getting
commuciation providers to log everything, is quite easy for phone companies with
already track calls, but its going to be huge task for ISP to log where every IP
packet comes and goes to, I hope ISP fight this in the courts.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Privacy\%20vs\%20surveillance/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Privacy vs Surveillance</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really glad they scrapped the central email/phone call logging system , there really was no way they good do that for just 2Billion , and the UK is strapped for cash at the minute , no put wasting money on surviellance that does n't work .
Getting commuciation providers to log everything , is quite easy for phone companies with already track calls , but its going to be huge task for ISP to log where every IP packet comes and goes to , I hope ISP fight this in the courts .
--- Privacy vs Surveillance [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really glad they scrapped the central email/phone call logging system, there really
was no way they good do that for just 2Billion, and the UK is strapped for cash at
the minute, no put wasting money on surviellance that doesn't work.
Getting
commuciation providers to log everything, is quite easy for phone companies with
already track calls, but its going to be huge task for ISP to log where every IP
packet comes and goes to, I hope ISP fight this in the courts.
---

Privacy vs Surveillance [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30049230</id>
	<title>Re:Making the difficult arguments</title>
	<author>frozen\_kangaroo</author>
	<datestamp>1257882000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that there should be a more "balanced" view.
<p>
If we go back a couple of generations ago, I seem to remember the UK valuing freedom at upwards of 250 000 lives, and paying that price.  Now we are prepared to give all that up to save a few ?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that there should be a more " balanced " view .
If we go back a couple of generations ago , I seem to remember the UK valuing freedom at upwards of 250 000 lives , and paying that price .
Now we are prepared to give all that up to save a few ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that there should be a more "balanced" view.
If we go back a couple of generations ago, I seem to remember the UK valuing freedom at upwards of 250 000 lives, and paying that price.
Now we are prepared to give all that up to save a few ?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044490</id>
	<title>Re:why? what is the point?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257861900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>aware ness <a href="http://www.hotelalsuite.com/" title="hotelalsuite.com" rel="nofollow">attack</a> [hotelalsuite.com] of the privecy.can be done then and then where you need  more security.but here you means something else.i think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>aware ness attack [ hotelalsuite.com ] of the privecy.can be done then and then where you need more security.but here you means something else.i think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>aware ness attack [hotelalsuite.com] of the privecy.can be done then and then where you need  more security.but here you means something else.i think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043836</id>
	<title>Horse, stable door, bolted...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257853800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two questions:</p><p>1 - Isn't this just making official what is already being done by the intelligence agencies (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon\_(signals\_intelligence)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Echelon</a> [wikipedia.org])?</p><p>2 - Is it possible to maintain privacy / anonymity on the web - why can't encrypted web traffic and email be the norm?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two questions : 1 - Is n't this just making official what is already being done by the intelligence agencies ( Echelon [ wikipedia.org ] ) ? 2 - Is it possible to maintain privacy / anonymity on the web - why ca n't encrypted web traffic and email be the norm ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two questions:1 - Isn't this just making official what is already being done by the intelligence agencies (Echelon [wikipedia.org])?2 - Is it possible to maintain privacy / anonymity on the web - why can't encrypted web traffic and email be the norm?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044358</id>
	<title>Re:Making the difficult arguments</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1257860460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When a politician or bureaucrat talks to you, what is the proper response?</p><p>"Yes masser"</p><p>You are a slave.   A serf.  Get used to it, or fight back before it's too late.  Ballot box.  Jury box.  Soap box.  Ammo box.  Use in that order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When a politician or bureaucrat talks to you , what is the proper response ?
" Yes masser " You are a slave .
A serf .
Get used to it , or fight back before it 's too late .
Ballot box .
Jury box .
Soap box .
Ammo box .
Use in that order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a politician or bureaucrat talks to you, what is the proper response?
"Yes masser"You are a slave.
A serf.
Get used to it, or fight back before it's too late.
Ballot box.
Jury box.
Soap box.
Ammo box.
Use in that order.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30046828</id>
	<title>identity cards</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1257873840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&lt;sarcasm&gt;<br>At least <b>the UK doesn't have identity cards</b>!  We may be the most surveilled and recorded society in the world, with neighbors spying on neighbors, but <b>we don't have identity cards</b>.   We elect conservative governments (of either party) who may put cameras everywhere, record where we walk and drive, and anal probe us at airports, but <b>we don't have identity cards</b>.  Did I mention that <b>the UK doesn't have identity cards</b> and won't stoop to the communist and fascist continental depths of having identity cards?  Yeah.   The UK rules [not so much anymore].<br>&amp;lt/sarcasm&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least the UK does n't have identity cards !
We may be the most surveilled and recorded society in the world , with neighbors spying on neighbors , but we do n't have identity cards .
We elect conservative governments ( of either party ) who may put cameras everywhere , record where we walk and drive , and anal probe us at airports , but we do n't have identity cards .
Did I mention that the UK does n't have identity cards and wo n't stoop to the communist and fascist continental depths of having identity cards ?
Yeah. The UK rules [ not so much anymore ] .&amp;lt/sarcasm &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least the UK doesn't have identity cards!
We may be the most surveilled and recorded society in the world, with neighbors spying on neighbors, but we don't have identity cards.
We elect conservative governments (of either party) who may put cameras everywhere, record where we walk and drive, and anal probe us at airports, but we don't have identity cards.
Did I mention that the UK doesn't have identity cards and won't stoop to the communist and fascist continental depths of having identity cards?
Yeah.   The UK rules [not so much anymore].&amp;lt/sarcasm&gt;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044128</id>
	<title>Re:why? what is the point?</title>
	<author>Canazza</author>
	<datestamp>1257857700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact is, the Secret Service has spent time and effort keeping the populace blissfully ignorant of technology's pitfalls and it's backfired. The creme of those ignorami are now in government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact is , the Secret Service has spent time and effort keeping the populace blissfully ignorant of technology 's pitfalls and it 's backfired .
The creme of those ignorami are now in government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact is, the Secret Service has spent time and effort keeping the populace blissfully ignorant of technology's pitfalls and it's backfired.
The creme of those ignorami are now in government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044244</id>
	<title>Two faced...</title>
	<author>chilvence</author>
	<datestamp>1257859260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A normal society would completely reject the idea that it has to be continuously monitored for its own safety. If anything, this doublethink only weakens the UK.  This is exactly the same thing that we openly criticise in other countries, only carefully differentiated so that the blanket definition doesn't stick. It's like saying 'our secret police are less secret and oppressive than everyone else's, so it doesn't count'. So is it right or isn't it? In this weakened state of mind where we don't know ourselves, the hypocrisy of it is totally open to attack...</htmltext>
<tokenext>A normal society would completely reject the idea that it has to be continuously monitored for its own safety .
If anything , this doublethink only weakens the UK .
This is exactly the same thing that we openly criticise in other countries , only carefully differentiated so that the blanket definition does n't stick .
It 's like saying 'our secret police are less secret and oppressive than everyone else 's , so it does n't count' .
So is it right or is n't it ?
In this weakened state of mind where we do n't know ourselves , the hypocrisy of it is totally open to attack.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A normal society would completely reject the idea that it has to be continuously monitored for its own safety.
If anything, this doublethink only weakens the UK.
This is exactly the same thing that we openly criticise in other countries, only carefully differentiated so that the blanket definition doesn't stick.
It's like saying 'our secret police are less secret and oppressive than everyone else's, so it doesn't count'.
So is it right or isn't it?
In this weakened state of mind where we don't know ourselves, the hypocrisy of it is totally open to attack...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043940</id>
	<title>Jokes migrate</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1257855240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"In Western Europe" is the new "In Soviet Russia".</htmltext>
<tokenext>" In Western Europe " is the new " In Soviet Russia " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In Western Europe" is the new "In Soviet Russia".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044020</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Brittish friends, why do you want Stasi?</title>
	<author>minasoko</author>
	<datestamp>1257856380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Simply put, we don't want this.<p>

We already kill ourselves in large numbers each year using cars, tobacco, junk food and alcohol, without any help by religious extremists. They're not even going to make a dent.</p><p>

This proposed legislation has little to do with protection of the citizenry and more to do with making sure that those in power, remain in power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply put , we do n't want this .
We already kill ourselves in large numbers each year using cars , tobacco , junk food and alcohol , without any help by religious extremists .
They 're not even going to make a dent .
This proposed legislation has little to do with protection of the citizenry and more to do with making sure that those in power , remain in power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply put, we don't want this.
We already kill ourselves in large numbers each year using cars, tobacco, junk food and alcohol, without any help by religious extremists.
They're not even going to make a dent.
This proposed legislation has little to do with protection of the citizenry and more to do with making sure that those in power, remain in power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044258</id>
	<title>Re:why? what is the point?</title>
	<author>Wowsers</author>
	<datestamp>1257859440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The budget for the snooping programme was allocated years ago, about &pound;1bn ($1.6bn US) was made public - it was a nice small sounding figure, nothing heard of the scheme again for years. NOW there is an election looming where everything from lying about immigration to the politicians expenses claims have been leaked, they are claiming that the scheme is dead in the water, when the truth is anything but.</p><p>

If the spies deny it, it is safe to assume they are lying to placate people<br>
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8032367.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8032367.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>The UK's electronic intelligence agency has taken the unusual step of issuing a statement to deny it will track all UK internet and online phone use.

</p><p>Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) said it was developing tracking technology but "only acts when it is necessary" and "does not spy at will".</p><p>

Known as Deep Packet Inspection equipment, these probes will "steal" the data, analyse and decode the information and then route it direct to a government-run database.</p></div><p>Or
<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882622.ece" title="timesonline.co.uk">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882622.ece</a> [timesonline.co.uk] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Every call you make, every e-mail you send, every website you visit - I'll be watching you.

That is the hope of Sir David Pepper who, as the director of GCHQ, the government's secret eavesdropping agency in Cheltenham, is plotting the biggest surveillance system ever created in Britain.

</p><p>The scope of the project - classified top secret - is said by officials to be so vast that it will dwarf the estimated &pound;5 billion ministers have set aside for the identity cards programme. It is intended to fight terrorism and crime. Civil liberties groups, however, say it poses an unprecedented intrusion into ordinary citizens' lives.</p><p>

Aimed at placing a "live tap" on every electronic communication in Britain, it will dwarf other "big brother" surveillance projects such as the number plate recognition system and the spread of CCTV.</p></div><p>I will say that the politicians here like to say "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". Strangely they don't subscribe to this maxim when you are looking into their criminal expenses claims, or government documents that are deeply embarrassing to the current government that were claimed to not exist - but exist, they just didn't want to release them.

The UK police don't like the rise of photo and video cameras showing their abuses of the law, so the current corrupt UK government passes a law where is it's crime to photo / record a police officer. <a href="http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=839141" title="bjp-online.com">http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=839141</a> [bjp-online.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The budget for the snooping programme was allocated years ago , about   1bn ( $ 1.6bn US ) was made public - it was a nice small sounding figure , nothing heard of the scheme again for years .
NOW there is an election looming where everything from lying about immigration to the politicians expenses claims have been leaked , they are claiming that the scheme is dead in the water , when the truth is anything but .
If the spies deny it , it is safe to assume they are lying to placate people http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8032367.stm [ bbc.co.uk ] The UK 's electronic intelligence agency has taken the unusual step of issuing a statement to deny it will track all UK internet and online phone use .
Government Communications Headquarters ( GCHQ ) said it was developing tracking technology but " only acts when it is necessary " and " does not spy at will " .
Known as Deep Packet Inspection equipment , these probes will " steal " the data , analyse and decode the information and then route it direct to a government-run database.Or http : //www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882622.ece [ timesonline.co.uk ] Every call you make , every e-mail you send , every website you visit - I 'll be watching you .
That is the hope of Sir David Pepper who , as the director of GCHQ , the government 's secret eavesdropping agency in Cheltenham , is plotting the biggest surveillance system ever created in Britain .
The scope of the project - classified top secret - is said by officials to be so vast that it will dwarf the estimated   5 billion ministers have set aside for the identity cards programme .
It is intended to fight terrorism and crime .
Civil liberties groups , however , say it poses an unprecedented intrusion into ordinary citizens ' lives .
Aimed at placing a " live tap " on every electronic communication in Britain , it will dwarf other " big brother " surveillance projects such as the number plate recognition system and the spread of CCTV.I will say that the politicians here like to say " if you have nothing to hide , you have nothing to fear " .
Strangely they do n't subscribe to this maxim when you are looking into their criminal expenses claims , or government documents that are deeply embarrassing to the current government that were claimed to not exist - but exist , they just did n't want to release them .
The UK police do n't like the rise of photo and video cameras showing their abuses of the law , so the current corrupt UK government passes a law where is it 's crime to photo / record a police officer .
http : //www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html ? page = 839141 [ bjp-online.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The budget for the snooping programme was allocated years ago, about £1bn ($1.6bn US) was made public - it was a nice small sounding figure, nothing heard of the scheme again for years.
NOW there is an election looming where everything from lying about immigration to the politicians expenses claims have been leaked, they are claiming that the scheme is dead in the water, when the truth is anything but.
If the spies deny it, it is safe to assume they are lying to placate people
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8032367.stm [bbc.co.uk] The UK's electronic intelligence agency has taken the unusual step of issuing a statement to deny it will track all UK internet and online phone use.
Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) said it was developing tracking technology but "only acts when it is necessary" and "does not spy at will".
Known as Deep Packet Inspection equipment, these probes will "steal" the data, analyse and decode the information and then route it direct to a government-run database.Or
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882622.ece [timesonline.co.uk] Every call you make, every e-mail you send, every website you visit - I'll be watching you.
That is the hope of Sir David Pepper who, as the director of GCHQ, the government's secret eavesdropping agency in Cheltenham, is plotting the biggest surveillance system ever created in Britain.
The scope of the project - classified top secret - is said by officials to be so vast that it will dwarf the estimated £5 billion ministers have set aside for the identity cards programme.
It is intended to fight terrorism and crime.
Civil liberties groups, however, say it poses an unprecedented intrusion into ordinary citizens' lives.
Aimed at placing a "live tap" on every electronic communication in Britain, it will dwarf other "big brother" surveillance projects such as the number plate recognition system and the spread of CCTV.I will say that the politicians here like to say "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".
Strangely they don't subscribe to this maxim when you are looking into their criminal expenses claims, or government documents that are deeply embarrassing to the current government that were claimed to not exist - but exist, they just didn't want to release them.
The UK police don't like the rise of photo and video cameras showing their abuses of the law, so the current corrupt UK government passes a law where is it's crime to photo / record a police officer.
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=839141 [bjp-online.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30050692</id>
	<title>Re:why? what is the point?</title>
	<author>Keeper Of Keys</author>
	<datestamp>1257844500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just cut the government off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just cut the government off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just cut the government off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043982</id>
	<title>How?</title>
	<author>mrthoughtful</author>
	<datestamp>1257855780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I talked to the government about this. The question I put to them was 'How?'.<br>It's pretty easy to install a secure private network - with any form of transport to go over it including voip, mail, irc, what-have-you.<br>It's a necessary feature of the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I talked to the government about this .
The question I put to them was 'How ?
'.It 's pretty easy to install a secure private network - with any form of transport to go over it including voip , mail , irc , what-have-you.It 's a necessary feature of the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I talked to the government about this.
The question I put to them was 'How?
'.It's pretty easy to install a secure private network - with any form of transport to go over it including voip, mail, irc, what-have-you.It's a necessary feature of the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043814</id>
	<title>Success rate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257853500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would be very curious to see statistics of what exactly those efforts achieved (or will achieve). How many crimes, terrorist attacks or whatever were actually prevented by those. I have the feeling that we hear a lot about new systems being set up and very little about their successes... Surprisingly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be very curious to see statistics of what exactly those efforts achieved ( or will achieve ) .
How many crimes , terrorist attacks or whatever were actually prevented by those .
I have the feeling that we hear a lot about new systems being set up and very little about their successes... Surprisingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be very curious to see statistics of what exactly those efforts achieved (or will achieve).
How many crimes, terrorist attacks or whatever were actually prevented by those.
I have the feeling that we hear a lot about new systems being set up and very little about their successes... Surprisingly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043762</id>
	<title>Dear Brittish friends, why do you want Stasi?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257852780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see much difference between this and Stasi? Except that this is significantly more efficient to run.</p><p>Could someone from Britain please explain why you want this? It cant be terrorists, you have had those for 50 years and never needed to compromise democracy this badly to face those?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see much difference between this and Stasi ?
Except that this is significantly more efficient to run.Could someone from Britain please explain why you want this ?
It cant be terrorists , you have had those for 50 years and never needed to compromise democracy this badly to face those ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see much difference between this and Stasi?
Except that this is significantly more efficient to run.Could someone from Britain please explain why you want this?
It cant be terrorists, you have had those for 50 years and never needed to compromise democracy this badly to face those?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044042</id>
	<title>Re:More jobs! As in Romania</title>
	<author>gink1</author>
	<datestamp>1257856560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like UK is taking their lead from Romania, where 1/3 of the population watched the other 2/3s.

How sad that most of the news out of Britain has to do with the rapidly expanding Police State.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like UK is taking their lead from Romania , where 1/3 of the population watched the other 2/3s .
How sad that most of the news out of Britain has to do with the rapidly expanding Police State .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like UK is taking their lead from Romania, where 1/3 of the population watched the other 2/3s.
How sad that most of the news out of Britain has to do with the rapidly expanding Police State.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043752</id>
	<title>why?  what is the point?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257852480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>could someone please seriously enlighten me as to why the UK government believes this has a chance of succeeding?</p><p>TalkTalk's director has already said unequivocably that TalkTalk will sue the UK Government if they proceed with policies like this, on the basis that presumably the TalkTalk director does not want to be put in jail for being ultimately responsible for implementing UK government policies that violate E.U and International Laws on privacy and human rights.</p><p>Additionally, the UK's secret service has warned the UK government that raising people's awareness of attacks on their privacy simply raises their awareness of techniques to keep their conversations private, thus making the job of snooping on conversations that really *matter* just that much more difficult and costly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>could someone please seriously enlighten me as to why the UK government believes this has a chance of succeeding ? TalkTalk 's director has already said unequivocably that TalkTalk will sue the UK Government if they proceed with policies like this , on the basis that presumably the TalkTalk director does not want to be put in jail for being ultimately responsible for implementing UK government policies that violate E.U and International Laws on privacy and human rights.Additionally , the UK 's secret service has warned the UK government that raising people 's awareness of attacks on their privacy simply raises their awareness of techniques to keep their conversations private , thus making the job of snooping on conversations that really * matter * just that much more difficult and costly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>could someone please seriously enlighten me as to why the UK government believes this has a chance of succeeding?TalkTalk's director has already said unequivocably that TalkTalk will sue the UK Government if they proceed with policies like this, on the basis that presumably the TalkTalk director does not want to be put in jail for being ultimately responsible for implementing UK government policies that violate E.U and International Laws on privacy and human rights.Additionally, the UK's secret service has warned the UK government that raising people's awareness of attacks on their privacy simply raises their awareness of techniques to keep their conversations private, thus making the job of snooping on conversations that really *matter* just that much more difficult and costly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044168</id>
	<title>Just wait till they ban all encryption.</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1257858300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exceptions would be made for online banking and shopping using a dedicated system that can't be used for anything else.</p><p>Using encryption for other purposes - even SSH to your work, or SSL login to your admin account on a web service would require special government certification and installing a dedicated monitoring software on the machine you're on. Otherwise, even posession of encryption software would land you in prison.</p><p>Other than that - mandatory government-issued spyware?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exceptions would be made for online banking and shopping using a dedicated system that ca n't be used for anything else.Using encryption for other purposes - even SSH to your work , or SSL login to your admin account on a web service would require special government certification and installing a dedicated monitoring software on the machine you 're on .
Otherwise , even posession of encryption software would land you in prison.Other than that - mandatory government-issued spyware ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exceptions would be made for online banking and shopping using a dedicated system that can't be used for anything else.Using encryption for other purposes - even SSH to your work, or SSL login to your admin account on a web service would require special government certification and installing a dedicated monitoring software on the machine you're on.
Otherwise, even posession of encryption software would land you in prison.Other than that - mandatory government-issued spyware?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044130</id>
	<title>The cat is out of the bag</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1257857760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only people you'll catch with this are folks who have been baited, or don't know what's going on. Ever clicked on a TinyURL link and been presented with one of the "Unholy Trinity"? Well, all it takes is one prick to make it a link to a CP thread on 4Chan and <b>*BAM*</b> jail. Been sent an email from someone you don't recognise and Outlook auto previews an image in the same vein? <b>*BAM*</b> jail.<br> <br>Pretty soon, I'll be ensuring that anyone I chat to either uses some kind of end-to-end encryption, or I'll just pipe anything apart from iPlayer and WoW through a VPN out of the country. At least that way, if I ever am conned into viewing something HM Gov says I shouldn't, I won't end up on a register for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only people you 'll catch with this are folks who have been baited , or do n't know what 's going on .
Ever clicked on a TinyURL link and been presented with one of the " Unholy Trinity " ?
Well , all it takes is one prick to make it a link to a CP thread on 4Chan and * BAM * jail .
Been sent an email from someone you do n't recognise and Outlook auto previews an image in the same vein ?
* BAM * jail .
Pretty soon , I 'll be ensuring that anyone I chat to either uses some kind of end-to-end encryption , or I 'll just pipe anything apart from iPlayer and WoW through a VPN out of the country .
At least that way , if I ever am conned into viewing something HM Gov says I should n't , I wo n't end up on a register for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only people you'll catch with this are folks who have been baited, or don't know what's going on.
Ever clicked on a TinyURL link and been presented with one of the "Unholy Trinity"?
Well, all it takes is one prick to make it a link to a CP thread on 4Chan and *BAM* jail.
Been sent an email from someone you don't recognise and Outlook auto previews an image in the same vein?
*BAM* jail.
Pretty soon, I'll be ensuring that anyone I chat to either uses some kind of end-to-end encryption, or I'll just pipe anything apart from iPlayer and WoW through a VPN out of the country.
At least that way, if I ever am conned into viewing something HM Gov says I shouldn't, I won't end up on a register for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044090</id>
	<title>Re:Dear Brittish friends, why do you want Stasi?</title>
	<author>daem0n1x</author>
	<datestamp>1257857220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny thing, they're just celebrating the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny thing , they 're just celebrating the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny thing, they're just celebrating the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043762</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044346</id>
	<title>Re:Just wait till they ban all encryption.</title>
	<author>skirtsteak\_asshat</author>
	<datestamp>1257860400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you suggesting the full vested interest of our military industrial complex cannot manage to break commonly used encryption schemes, or that they just can't do it quickly and easily?
<br>
I'd argue both are probably outdated notions.  The computing power they have available is pretty damn amazing.

If these encryption schema were breakable, why would they announce it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you suggesting the full vested interest of our military industrial complex can not manage to break commonly used encryption schemes , or that they just ca n't do it quickly and easily ?
I 'd argue both are probably outdated notions .
The computing power they have available is pretty damn amazing .
If these encryption schema were breakable , why would they announce it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you suggesting the full vested interest of our military industrial complex cannot manage to break commonly used encryption schemes, or that they just can't do it quickly and easily?
I'd argue both are probably outdated notions.
The computing power they have available is pretty damn amazing.
If these encryption schema were breakable, why would they announce it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044168</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30049632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30045428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30045250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30052900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30045354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044072
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30045230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30049290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30049524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30057148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30050692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30045206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044168
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30049452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30049430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30049230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30046540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_09_2340212_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043762
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2340212.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30049632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2340212.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2340212.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30045206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30045428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2340212.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30045354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30049452
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2340212.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30045250
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2340212.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2340212.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2340212.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30049230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30049524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30045230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2340212.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2340212.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30049430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2340212.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30043752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30050692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30049290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30052900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30057148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044128
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2340212.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_09_2340212.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30044130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_09_2340212.30046540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
