<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_10_1727220</id>
	<title>Justice Dept. Asked For Broad Swath of IndyMedia's Visitor Records</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257874380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:DesScorpNO@SPAMGmail.com" rel="nofollow">DesScorp</a> writes <i>"In a case that tests whether online and independent journalism has the same protections as mainstream journalism, the Justice Department sent Indymedia a grand jury subpoena. It requires a list of all visitors on a day, and further, a gag order to Indymedia 'not to disclose the existence of this request.' CBS reports that 'Kristina Clair, a 34-year-old Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for Indymedia.us, said she was shocked to receive the Justice Department's subpoena,' and that 'The subpoena from US Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/09/taking\_liberties/entry5595506.shtml?tag=mncol;txt">demanded "all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us" on June 25, 2008</a>. It instructed Clair to "include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information," including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers' Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.' Clair is being defended by the Electronic Frontier Foundation."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>DesScorp writes " In a case that tests whether online and independent journalism has the same protections as mainstream journalism , the Justice Department sent Indymedia a grand jury subpoena .
It requires a list of all visitors on a day , and further , a gag order to Indymedia 'not to disclose the existence of this request .
' CBS reports that 'Kristina Clair , a 34-year-old Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for Indymedia.us , said she was shocked to receive the Justice Department 's subpoena, ' and that 'The subpoena from US Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded " all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us " on June 25 , 2008 .
It instructed Clair to " include IP addresses , times , and any other identifying information , " including e-mail addresses , physical addresses , registered accounts , and Indymedia readers ' Social Security Numbers , bank account numbers , credit card numbers , and so on .
' Clair is being defended by the Electronic Frontier Foundation .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DesScorp writes "In a case that tests whether online and independent journalism has the same protections as mainstream journalism, the Justice Department sent Indymedia a grand jury subpoena.
It requires a list of all visitors on a day, and further, a gag order to Indymedia 'not to disclose the existence of this request.
' CBS reports that 'Kristina Clair, a 34-year-old Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for Indymedia.us, said she was shocked to receive the Justice Department's subpoena,' and that 'The subpoena from US Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded "all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us" on June 25, 2008.
It instructed Clair to "include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information," including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers' Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.
' Clair is being defended by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048632</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257879720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you had RTFA you would see responses by the EFF lawyers in Feb 2009 to a subpoena.<br>You appear to have assumed that it was Obama's US Attorney who had issued this one.<br>I suspect that was not the case.</p><p>I agree that the institutional government party is uniformly jealous<br>of power and control</p><p>There will be later cases where it is Obama's justice department doing this, but not this particular one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you had RTFA you would see responses by the EFF lawyers in Feb 2009 to a subpoena.You appear to have assumed that it was Obama 's US Attorney who had issued this one.I suspect that was not the case.I agree that the institutional government party is uniformly jealousof power and controlThere will be later cases where it is Obama 's justice department doing this , but not this particular one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you had RTFA you would see responses by the EFF lawyers in Feb 2009 to a subpoena.You appear to have assumed that it was Obama's US Attorney who had issued this one.I suspect that was not the case.I agree that the institutional government party is uniformly jealousof power and controlThere will be later cases where it is Obama's justice department doing this, but not this particular one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048316</id>
	<title>I don't get it</title>
	<author>amiga3D</author>
	<datestamp>1257878700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would anyone be shocked by something like this?  It's not like it hasn't happened before.  One thing about LIberals and Conservatives, they both like control.  Their idealogies may not be the same but their methods aren't that different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anyone be shocked by something like this ?
It 's not like it has n't happened before .
One thing about LIberals and Conservatives , they both like control .
Their idealogies may not be the same but their methods are n't that different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anyone be shocked by something like this?
It's not like it hasn't happened before.
One thing about LIberals and Conservatives, they both like control.
Their idealogies may not be the same but their methods aren't that different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048182</id>
	<title>How small is it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rob Malda's penis is so small that when he went to the glory hole with kdawson last night, he was confused for a toddler.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rob Malda 's penis is so small that when he went to the glory hole with kdawson last night , he was confused for a toddler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rob Malda's penis is so small that when he went to the glory hole with kdawson last night, he was confused for a toddler.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049278</id>
	<title>Re:And why are websites still keeping this info?</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1257882180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>...data stored in a computer's Random Access Memory --that's correct you read it right, in its RAM -- is discoverable.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Sure Officer, you can have the RAM and its contents.  Let me turn off the system and pull out those modules for you...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...data stored in a computer 's Random Access Memory --that 's correct you read it right , in its RAM -- is discoverable .
Sure Officer , you can have the RAM and its contents .
Let me turn off the system and pull out those modules for you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...data stored in a computer's Random Access Memory --that's correct you read it right, in its RAM -- is discoverable.
Sure Officer, you can have the RAM and its contents.
Let me turn off the system and pull out those modules for you...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048722</id>
	<title>Re:This is change</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1257880080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ha, ha, you are a funny man.<br> <br>

Given that, at present, all but one of the states has at least one "fusion center"(and that last one may have gotten one in the meantime) where state and local police forces voluntarily get together with their Fed, military, and private sector buddies for general surveillance state fun, I'd say that the odds of secession over excessive state surveillance are ~0. With the exception of libertarians that the republicans don't listen to, and civil libertarians that the democrats don't listen to, there is broad support, in government and among the public, for pretty much anything that promises "security".There are occasional disagreements over who is sub-human enough to be the public face of the terrifying enemy; but that is largely cosmetic.<br> <br>

With few (and politically irrelevant) exceptions, there are basically no actual "states' rights" enthusiasts. There are plenty of people who reliably take up the "states' rights" banner when they aren't getting what they want at the federal level and then drop it as soon as they are; but that isn't exactly the same thing</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha , ha , you are a funny man .
Given that , at present , all but one of the states has at least one " fusion center " ( and that last one may have gotten one in the meantime ) where state and local police forces voluntarily get together with their Fed , military , and private sector buddies for general surveillance state fun , I 'd say that the odds of secession over excessive state surveillance are ~ 0 .
With the exception of libertarians that the republicans do n't listen to , and civil libertarians that the democrats do n't listen to , there is broad support , in government and among the public , for pretty much anything that promises " security " .There are occasional disagreements over who is sub-human enough to be the public face of the terrifying enemy ; but that is largely cosmetic .
With few ( and politically irrelevant ) exceptions , there are basically no actual " states ' rights " enthusiasts .
There are plenty of people who reliably take up the " states ' rights " banner when they are n't getting what they want at the federal level and then drop it as soon as they are ; but that is n't exactly the same thing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha, ha, you are a funny man.
Given that, at present, all but one of the states has at least one "fusion center"(and that last one may have gotten one in the meantime) where state and local police forces voluntarily get together with their Fed, military, and private sector buddies for general surveillance state fun, I'd say that the odds of secession over excessive state surveillance are ~0.
With the exception of libertarians that the republicans don't listen to, and civil libertarians that the democrats don't listen to, there is broad support, in government and among the public, for pretty much anything that promises "security".There are occasional disagreements over who is sub-human enough to be the public face of the terrifying enemy; but that is largely cosmetic.
With few (and politically irrelevant) exceptions, there are basically no actual "states' rights" enthusiasts.
There are plenty of people who reliably take up the "states' rights" banner when they aren't getting what they want at the federal level and then drop it as soon as they are; but that isn't exactly the same thing</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051484</id>
	<title>Re:What were they interested in?</title>
	<author>b4dc0d3r</author>
	<datestamp>1257847860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most likely it was a comment - someone making threats or suspicious allusions.</p><p>Assuming they host comments, I've never been there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most likely it was a comment - someone making threats or suspicious allusions.Assuming they host comments , I 've never been there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most likely it was a comment - someone making threats or suspicious allusions.Assuming they host comments, I've never been there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050156</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048196</id>
	<title>In Gulag U.S.A.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>EVERY electronic communication ( domestic and international) is intercepted.</p><p>Yours In Prokopyevsk,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EVERY electronic communication ( domestic and international ) is intercepted.Yours In Prokopyevsk,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EVERY electronic communication ( domestic and international) is intercepted.Yours In Prokopyevsk,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30055598</id>
	<title>Re:Holy old news-A summary in disguise.</title>
	<author>e-scetic</author>
	<datestamp>1257869580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe when they meet resistance they just forward a request to the NSA?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe when they meet resistance they just forward a request to the NSA ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe when they meet resistance they just forward a request to the NSA?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30052590</id>
	<title>Re:"Most transparent administration ever"</title>
	<author>spitzak</author>
	<datestamp>1257852180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The agency, citing federal policies, told the two lawyers, Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel, who are married and based in San Francisco, that they could mention their E.P.A. affiliation only once; must remove language specifying Mr. Zabel&rsquo;s expertise and their years of employment with the agency; and must remove an image of the agency&rsquo;s office in San Francisco.</p><p>Ms. Williams and Mr. Zabel say cap and trade, in which the government sets a limit on gases that contribute to global warming and then lets companies trade permits to meet it, can be easily gamed by industry and fail to reduce the emissions linked to global warming."</p><p>Just thought it might be interesting to post what the article actually says as the first poster is somewhat misleading.</p><p>1. The complaint is that they must change the video to not imply that it is results of work at the agency</p><p>2. That the video makes a left-wing claim that the Obama administration is being too friendly to business. Not the "global warming is a hoax" claim you might guess from the parent's post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The agency , citing federal policies , told the two lawyers , Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel , who are married and based in San Francisco , that they could mention their E.P.A .
affiliation only once ; must remove language specifying Mr. Zabel    s expertise and their years of employment with the agency ; and must remove an image of the agency    s office in San Francisco.Ms .
Williams and Mr. Zabel say cap and trade , in which the government sets a limit on gases that contribute to global warming and then lets companies trade permits to meet it , can be easily gamed by industry and fail to reduce the emissions linked to global warming .
" Just thought it might be interesting to post what the article actually says as the first poster is somewhat misleading.1 .
The complaint is that they must change the video to not imply that it is results of work at the agency2 .
That the video makes a left-wing claim that the Obama administration is being too friendly to business .
Not the " global warming is a hoax " claim you might guess from the parent 's post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The agency, citing federal policies, told the two lawyers, Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel, who are married and based in San Francisco, that they could mention their E.P.A.
affiliation only once; must remove language specifying Mr. Zabel’s expertise and their years of employment with the agency; and must remove an image of the agency’s office in San Francisco.Ms.
Williams and Mr. Zabel say cap and trade, in which the government sets a limit on gases that contribute to global warming and then lets companies trade permits to meet it, can be easily gamed by industry and fail to reduce the emissions linked to global warming.
"Just thought it might be interesting to post what the article actually says as the first poster is somewhat misleading.1.
The complaint is that they must change the video to not imply that it is results of work at the agency2.
That the video makes a left-wing claim that the Obama administration is being too friendly to business.
Not the "global warming is a hoax" claim you might guess from the parent's post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30052876</id>
	<title>Re:"Most transparent administration ever"</title>
	<author>Falconhell</author>
	<datestamp>1257853620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another pathetic attempt at character assasination by a gutless AC. If you had any courage in your convictions you would post logged in</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another pathetic attempt at character assasination by a gutless AC .
If you had any courage in your convictions you would post logged in</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another pathetic attempt at character assasination by a gutless AC.
If you had any courage in your convictions you would post logged in</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049706</id>
	<title>Dump That Data!</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1257883860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>        Unless their is some legal compulsion to do so why not just destroy all traces of data that flows to a site every day or two? Just why is there any need to hang on to all of that information?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless their is some legal compulsion to do so why not just destroy all traces of data that flows to a site every day or two ?
Just why is there any need to hang on to all of that information ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>        Unless their is some legal compulsion to do so why not just destroy all traces of data that flows to a site every day or two?
Just why is there any need to hang on to all of that information?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048394</id>
	<title>Re:And why are websites still keeping this info?</title>
	<author>quangdog</author>
	<datestamp>1257878940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't run any sites that will likely be the subject of a subpoena, but I also don't keep logs around for more than a few weeks.
<br> <br>
Do they honestly expect that logs from last year will still be available and contain the info they are demanding?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't run any sites that will likely be the subject of a subpoena , but I also do n't keep logs around for more than a few weeks .
Do they honestly expect that logs from last year will still be available and contain the info they are demanding ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't run any sites that will likely be the subject of a subpoena, but I also don't keep logs around for more than a few weeks.
Do they honestly expect that logs from last year will still be available and contain the info they are demanding?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049010</id>
	<title>Re:And why are websites still keeping this info?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257881100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Posting anonymously, since I have insight into this stuff that should probably have a security clearance for (which I do not).</p><p>Major companies, internet providers, and telecommunications providers (cell networks, other wireless communications, etc) are being forced into implementing logging and retention of this data on huge scales.  When I say forced, I mean under threat of pissing off the government.  There are no laws saying these companies have to retain this data for years, and provide it to government agencies without warrants or subpoenas, but they're telling us to do it anyway.</p><p>These large companies are basically folding on the simple premise that they don't want to piss off the governments in the areas they operate.  The US is especially good at forcing this.  At least China is upfront with their monitoring - the US does all the same, but without the laws supporting them.</p><p>At current, there is the expectation that any internet provider will provide browsing logs for any subscriber they have.  Without a warrant.  On request.  Heck, for the bigger companies, they want a web interface where they can query themselves.</p><p>Small providers get you part of the way around this, but their uplinks are becoming the targets.  Large providers are fucked at this point.  In my company, I'm watching them implement 15 petabyte storage solutions just to keep track of 12 months of http hits (compressed, of course).</p><p>People don't get this.  This is -huge-.  I never assume anything on the internet that I do is not being tracked, logged, and made available to multiple governments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Posting anonymously , since I have insight into this stuff that should probably have a security clearance for ( which I do not ) .Major companies , internet providers , and telecommunications providers ( cell networks , other wireless communications , etc ) are being forced into implementing logging and retention of this data on huge scales .
When I say forced , I mean under threat of pissing off the government .
There are no laws saying these companies have to retain this data for years , and provide it to government agencies without warrants or subpoenas , but they 're telling us to do it anyway.These large companies are basically folding on the simple premise that they do n't want to piss off the governments in the areas they operate .
The US is especially good at forcing this .
At least China is upfront with their monitoring - the US does all the same , but without the laws supporting them.At current , there is the expectation that any internet provider will provide browsing logs for any subscriber they have .
Without a warrant .
On request .
Heck , for the bigger companies , they want a web interface where they can query themselves.Small providers get you part of the way around this , but their uplinks are becoming the targets .
Large providers are fucked at this point .
In my company , I 'm watching them implement 15 petabyte storage solutions just to keep track of 12 months of http hits ( compressed , of course ) .People do n't get this .
This is -huge- .
I never assume anything on the internet that I do is not being tracked , logged , and made available to multiple governments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posting anonymously, since I have insight into this stuff that should probably have a security clearance for (which I do not).Major companies, internet providers, and telecommunications providers (cell networks, other wireless communications, etc) are being forced into implementing logging and retention of this data on huge scales.
When I say forced, I mean under threat of pissing off the government.
There are no laws saying these companies have to retain this data for years, and provide it to government agencies without warrants or subpoenas, but they're telling us to do it anyway.These large companies are basically folding on the simple premise that they don't want to piss off the governments in the areas they operate.
The US is especially good at forcing this.
At least China is upfront with their monitoring - the US does all the same, but without the laws supporting them.At current, there is the expectation that any internet provider will provide browsing logs for any subscriber they have.
Without a warrant.
On request.
Heck, for the bigger companies, they want a web interface where they can query themselves.Small providers get you part of the way around this, but their uplinks are becoming the targets.
Large providers are fucked at this point.
In my company, I'm watching them implement 15 petabyte storage solutions just to keep track of 12 months of http hits (compressed, of course).People don't get this.
This is -huge-.
I never assume anything on the internet that I do is not being tracked, logged, and made available to multiple governments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049982</id>
	<title>Re:Don't hang onto visitor stats</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257884820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No. With a spoon!</p><p>Why a spoon?</p><p>Because it hurts more! ^^</p><p>P.S.: I think the quote was from "Robin Hood - Men In Tights". But I can't find in online.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
With a spoon ! Why a spoon ? Because it hurts more !
^ ^ P.S. : I think the quote was from " Robin Hood - Men In Tights " .
But I ca n't find in online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
With a spoon!Why a spoon?Because it hurts more!
^^P.S.: I think the quote was from "Robin Hood - Men In Tights".
But I can't find in online.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30057478</id>
	<title>Re:That's change I can believe in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So basically they would make citizens pay (VERY literally) for the mistakes and wrongdoings of the government? They would accept the financial ruin of somebody to further their agenda?</p><p>Kind of makes me doubt your theory very much. The more likely explanation is that if you give somebody power, they will abuse it as much as they can. It's usually as simple as that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically they would make citizens pay ( VERY literally ) for the mistakes and wrongdoings of the government ?
They would accept the financial ruin of somebody to further their agenda ? Kind of makes me doubt your theory very much .
The more likely explanation is that if you give somebody power , they will abuse it as much as they can .
It 's usually as simple as that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically they would make citizens pay (VERY literally) for the mistakes and wrongdoings of the government?
They would accept the financial ruin of somebody to further their agenda?Kind of makes me doubt your theory very much.
The more likely explanation is that if you give somebody power, they will abuse it as much as they can.
It's usually as simple as that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048540</id>
	<title>Re:And why are websites still keeping this info?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257879420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dear website admin,<br>

You are now ordered to supply us with a printout of all information in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null

<p>http://www.infoworld.com/t/tech-industry-analysis/court-rules-content-ram-memory-discoverable-705</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In what some are calling a "rogue" decision, the Los Angeles District Court ruled on May 29, 2007, in Columbia Pictures Industries v. Bunnell, that data stored in a computer's Random Access Memory --that's correct you read it right, in its RAM -- is discoverable.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear website admin , You are now ordered to supply us with a printout of all information in /dev/null http : //www.infoworld.com/t/tech-industry-analysis/court-rules-content-ram-memory-discoverable-705In what some are calling a " rogue " decision , the Los Angeles District Court ruled on May 29 , 2007 , in Columbia Pictures Industries v. Bunnell , that data stored in a computer 's Random Access Memory --that 's correct you read it right , in its RAM -- is discoverable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear website admin,

You are now ordered to supply us with a printout of all information in /dev/null

http://www.infoworld.com/t/tech-industry-analysis/court-rules-content-ram-memory-discoverable-705In what some are calling a "rogue" decision, the Los Angeles District Court ruled on May 29, 2007, in Columbia Pictures Industries v. Bunnell, that data stored in a computer's Random Access Memory --that's correct you read it right, in its RAM -- is discoverable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30053562</id>
	<title>Re:The date</title>
	<author>Sowelu</author>
	<datestamp>1257857340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems pretty obvious to me.  They have a suspect in a totally unrelated case who they are pretty sure visited Indymedia on that day...say, they have a laptop that they took around that time, but they need a little more evidence to prove that the IP actually showed up in the logs, or to prove some login information.
<br> <br>
So somehow, maybe misguidedly, they think that getting those logs will help them prove some other criminal case.  Maybe a kiddie porn investigation, maybe a murder where the guy logged on from his victim's house.  In any case, the Indymedia system isn't really involved--except that some guy of interest touched the site, and they need to convince a jury or a jury of that to establish some other fact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems pretty obvious to me .
They have a suspect in a totally unrelated case who they are pretty sure visited Indymedia on that day...say , they have a laptop that they took around that time , but they need a little more evidence to prove that the IP actually showed up in the logs , or to prove some login information .
So somehow , maybe misguidedly , they think that getting those logs will help them prove some other criminal case .
Maybe a kiddie porn investigation , maybe a murder where the guy logged on from his victim 's house .
In any case , the Indymedia system is n't really involved--except that some guy of interest touched the site , and they need to convince a jury or a jury of that to establish some other fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems pretty obvious to me.
They have a suspect in a totally unrelated case who they are pretty sure visited Indymedia on that day...say, they have a laptop that they took around that time, but they need a little more evidence to prove that the IP actually showed up in the logs, or to prove some login information.
So somehow, maybe misguidedly, they think that getting those logs will help them prove some other criminal case.
Maybe a kiddie porn investigation, maybe a murder where the guy logged on from his victim's house.
In any case, the Indymedia system isn't really involved--except that some guy of interest touched the site, and they need to convince a jury or a jury of that to establish some other fact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048342</id>
	<title>Re:Not to disclose the request</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The biggest worry to me is the line "...not to disclose the request".  They can issue a bogus request and get shot down via proper channels.  But asking everyone to keep it a secret smells fishy.</p></div><p>There's been a lot of this since Patriot passed.</p><p><a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/patriot-act-gag/" title="wired.com" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> [wired.com] an article from last month about the gag orders. Did<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. pick it up back then? I'm new to the world here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest worry to me is the line " ...not to disclose the request " .
They can issue a bogus request and get shot down via proper channels .
But asking everyone to keep it a secret smells fishy.There 's been a lot of this since Patriot passed.Here 's [ wired.com ] an article from last month about the gag orders .
Did / .
pick it up back then ?
I 'm new to the world here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest worry to me is the line "...not to disclose the request".
They can issue a bogus request and get shot down via proper channels.
But asking everyone to keep it a secret smells fishy.There's been a lot of this since Patriot passed.Here's [wired.com] an article from last month about the gag orders.
Did /.
pick it up back then?
I'm new to the world here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050476</id>
	<title>Re:And why are websites still keeping this info?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257886740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, this is scary.</p><p>I am not very familiar with the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure but in the Records Management world,<br>one could consider the contents of RAM as "transitory information", i.e. like that "wanna go for lunch email" you get but<br>are not required to archive for e-discovery purposes.</p><p>The problem is that if this becomes "discoverable", you can't simply do a dump of memory, you have to actually prepare it in<br>a manageable, readable way. Otherwise, eager $500/hour lawyers will do this manually for you. At your own costs.</p><p>Merill Lynch did a "here you go" when asked for some files and brought a few hundred backup tapes. The judge was not amused and fined them an extra few million $.</p><p>What is necessary is to have a PUBLISHED policy on your retention schedule. Simply having httpd.conf redirect logging to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null may be seen as trying to compromise logs. You may need to officially publish (some do it as part of their "privacy policy") that documents what you will log, how long, and for what reason.</p><p>If you are not legally obligated to keep these logs, document a retention policy, possibly for the reason being "performance reasons" and have this published and accessible. This should afford you extra protection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , this is scary.I am not very familiar with the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure but in the Records Management world,one could consider the contents of RAM as " transitory information " , i.e .
like that " wan na go for lunch email " you get butare not required to archive for e-discovery purposes.The problem is that if this becomes " discoverable " , you ca n't simply do a dump of memory , you have to actually prepare it ina manageable , readable way .
Otherwise , eager $ 500/hour lawyers will do this manually for you .
At your own costs.Merill Lynch did a " here you go " when asked for some files and brought a few hundred backup tapes .
The judge was not amused and fined them an extra few million $ .What is necessary is to have a PUBLISHED policy on your retention schedule .
Simply having httpd.conf redirect logging to /dev/null may be seen as trying to compromise logs .
You may need to officially publish ( some do it as part of their " privacy policy " ) that documents what you will log , how long , and for what reason.If you are not legally obligated to keep these logs , document a retention policy , possibly for the reason being " performance reasons " and have this published and accessible .
This should afford you extra protection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, this is scary.I am not very familiar with the Federal Rules for Civil Procedure but in the Records Management world,one could consider the contents of RAM as "transitory information", i.e.
like that "wanna go for lunch email" you get butare not required to archive for e-discovery purposes.The problem is that if this becomes "discoverable", you can't simply do a dump of memory, you have to actually prepare it ina manageable, readable way.
Otherwise, eager $500/hour lawyers will do this manually for you.
At your own costs.Merill Lynch did a "here you go" when asked for some files and brought a few hundred backup tapes.
The judge was not amused and fined them an extra few million $.What is necessary is to have a PUBLISHED policy on your retention schedule.
Simply having httpd.conf redirect logging to /dev/null may be seen as trying to compromise logs.
You may need to officially publish (some do it as part of their "privacy policy") that documents what you will log, how long, and for what reason.If you are not legally obligated to keep these logs, document a retention policy, possibly for the reason being "performance reasons" and have this published and accessible.
This should afford you extra protection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049918</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257884640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Really? When was the last time you heard of a "liberal" judge or federal prosecutor trying to stomp on free speech?</p></div><p>Attempting to stomp on free speech in the case of liberal judges and prosecutors?  Not often if at all.  They're actually smart enough to know better.</p><p>Attempting to stomp on free speech in the case of other liberals?  Just about any freakin' time you dare to say something that doesn't pass their environmental, ideological and political correctness must-toe-the-party-line purity tests.  Speaking that which they do not care to hear gets you labeled a hater, a racist, or whatever they've decided to call those they oppose this week.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
When was the last time you heard of a " liberal " judge or federal prosecutor trying to stomp on free speech ? Attempting to stomp on free speech in the case of liberal judges and prosecutors ?
Not often if at all .
They 're actually smart enough to know better.Attempting to stomp on free speech in the case of other liberals ?
Just about any freakin ' time you dare to say something that does n't pass their environmental , ideological and political correctness must-toe-the-party-line purity tests .
Speaking that which they do not care to hear gets you labeled a hater , a racist , or whatever they 've decided to call those they oppose this week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
When was the last time you heard of a "liberal" judge or federal prosecutor trying to stomp on free speech?Attempting to stomp on free speech in the case of liberal judges and prosecutors?
Not often if at all.
They're actually smart enough to know better.Attempting to stomp on free speech in the case of other liberals?
Just about any freakin' time you dare to say something that doesn't pass their environmental, ideological and political correctness must-toe-the-party-line purity tests.
Speaking that which they do not care to hear gets you labeled a hater, a racist, or whatever they've decided to call those they oppose this week.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048976</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257880980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really? When was the last time you heard of a "liberal" judge or federal prosecutor trying to stomp on free speech?
<br>
BTW, calendar check..., Tim Morrison (the moron who started all this nonsense) was appointed to his federal post of United States Attorney under the Bush (43) administration. So you're right - a right-wing appointed tool acting they way he did... not surprising in the least. Well, OK, there was one surprise. The subpoena was so ham-handed that I rather expected to see that he'd been one of those Regent University losers, so many of whom found their way, as political favors, into positions way above their skill, knowledge and abilities. But no, Attorney Morrison actually has something on his resume, including an education at a real university. Go figure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
When was the last time you heard of a " liberal " judge or federal prosecutor trying to stomp on free speech ?
BTW , calendar check... , Tim Morrison ( the moron who started all this nonsense ) was appointed to his federal post of United States Attorney under the Bush ( 43 ) administration .
So you 're right - a right-wing appointed tool acting they way he did... not surprising in the least .
Well , OK , there was one surprise .
The subpoena was so ham-handed that I rather expected to see that he 'd been one of those Regent University losers , so many of whom found their way , as political favors , into positions way above their skill , knowledge and abilities .
But no , Attorney Morrison actually has something on his resume , including an education at a real university .
Go figure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
When was the last time you heard of a "liberal" judge or federal prosecutor trying to stomp on free speech?
BTW, calendar check..., Tim Morrison (the moron who started all this nonsense) was appointed to his federal post of United States Attorney under the Bush (43) administration.
So you're right - a right-wing appointed tool acting they way he did... not surprising in the least.
Well, OK, there was one surprise.
The subpoena was so ham-handed that I rather expected to see that he'd been one of those Regent University losers, so many of whom found their way, as political favors, into positions way above their skill, knowledge and abilities.
But no, Attorney Morrison actually has something on his resume, including an education at a real university.
Go figure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048272</id>
	<title>Good luck with that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>If she is only retaining the logs of the IP addresses for a few months, and did not know this order was coming, she is safe.<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule37.htm" title="cornell.edu" rel="nofollow">FRCP Rule 37 states:</a> [cornell.edu]<p><div class="quote"><p>Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If she is only retaining the logs of the IP addresses for a few months , and did not know this order was coming , she is safe .
FRCP Rule 37 states : [ cornell.edu ] Absent exceptional circumstances , a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine , good-faith operation of an electronic information system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If she is only retaining the logs of the IP addresses for a few months, and did not know this order was coming, she is safe.
FRCP Rule 37 states: [cornell.edu]Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048730</id>
	<title>No Federal Shield Law for Journalists</title>
	<author>redfire111</author>
	<datestamp>1257880080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since this is being tried in Federal Courts there is no shield law to protect journalists from turning over their records. Only individual states have shield laws.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since this is being tried in Federal Courts there is no shield law to protect journalists from turning over their records .
Only individual states have shield laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since this is being tried in Federal Courts there is no shield law to protect journalists from turning over their records.
Only individual states have shield laws.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049770</id>
	<title>Re:And why are websites still keeping this info?</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1257884040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and your firewall and access logs aren't on the tape backups either<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and your firewall and access logs are n't on the tape backups either ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and your firewall and access logs aren't on the tape backups either ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048756</id>
	<title>Re:Holy old news-A summary in disguise.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257880140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The subpoena was initially timed around the Republican National Convention.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The subpoena was initially timed around the Republican National Convention .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The subpoena was initially timed around the Republican National Convention.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051394</id>
	<title>"Most transparent administration ever"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257847440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><b>BULLSHIT</b></p><p>Wait!  It gets even better!</p><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/politics/10epa.html?\_r=3&amp;ref=todayspaper" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">Environmental Agency Warns 2 Staff Lawyers Over Video Criticizing Climate Policy</a> [nytimes.com]</p><p>When is Slashdot going to run <b>THAT</b> story?  The oh-so-fucking-<i>transparent</i> <b>OBAMA</b> administration censoring dissent!</p><p>I can hardly wait for this bunch of assclowns to put themselves in charge of health care!</p><p>Woo hoo!  That will be even more "change we can believe in".</p><p>Obama's the one needing change - changed like a baby's full diaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BULLSHITWait !
It gets even better ! Environmental Agency Warns 2 Staff Lawyers Over Video Criticizing Climate Policy [ nytimes.com ] When is Slashdot going to run THAT story ?
The oh-so-fucking-transparent OBAMA administration censoring dissent ! I can hardly wait for this bunch of assclowns to put themselves in charge of health care ! Woo hoo !
That will be even more " change we can believe in " .Obama 's the one needing change - changed like a baby 's full diaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BULLSHITWait!
It gets even better!Environmental Agency Warns 2 Staff Lawyers Over Video Criticizing Climate Policy [nytimes.com]When is Slashdot going to run THAT story?
The oh-so-fucking-transparent OBAMA administration censoring dissent!I can hardly wait for this bunch of assclowns to put themselves in charge of health care!Woo hoo!
That will be even more "change we can believe in".Obama's the one needing change - changed like a baby's full diaper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048982</id>
	<title>A question</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1257881040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when are lists of readers or subscribers protected information, specifically protect from revelation through subpoena?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when are lists of readers or subscribers protected information , specifically protect from revelation through subpoena ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when are lists of readers or subscribers protected information, specifically protect from revelation through subpoena?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048598</id>
	<title>Re:This is change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257879600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you remember (from history class) what happened the last time some States tried to secede?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you remember ( from history class ) what happened the last time some States tried to secede ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you remember (from history class) what happened the last time some States tried to secede?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051248</id>
	<title>Re:The date</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1257846960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect it's simply a matter of when they thought to do it.</p><p>IndyMedia tends to have info on a lot of things that the fascist types find inconvenient, such as what weapons were being deployed against protesters in Pittsburgh during the G20 summit and videos of police beating up people who aren't threatening them. By looking at the visitor logs, they can find out who's finding out about their not-so-legal activities, and oppress accordingly.</p><p>In other words, this has "chilling effect" written all over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect it 's simply a matter of when they thought to do it.IndyMedia tends to have info on a lot of things that the fascist types find inconvenient , such as what weapons were being deployed against protesters in Pittsburgh during the G20 summit and videos of police beating up people who are n't threatening them .
By looking at the visitor logs , they can find out who 's finding out about their not-so-legal activities , and oppress accordingly.In other words , this has " chilling effect " written all over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect it's simply a matter of when they thought to do it.IndyMedia tends to have info on a lot of things that the fascist types find inconvenient, such as what weapons were being deployed against protesters in Pittsburgh during the G20 summit and videos of police beating up people who aren't threatening them.
By looking at the visitor logs, they can find out who's finding out about their not-so-legal activities, and oppress accordingly.In other words, this has "chilling effect" written all over it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30052562</id>
	<title>SSNs?</title>
	<author>Beorytis</author>
	<datestamp>1257852120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...Indymedia readers' Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.'</p></div><p>Are we sure this was a DOJ subpoena and not a phishing scheme?  Who puts their SSN into a news website profile?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Indymedia readers ' Social Security Numbers , bank account numbers , credit card numbers , and so on .
'Are we sure this was a DOJ subpoena and not a phishing scheme ?
Who puts their SSN into a news website profile ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...Indymedia readers' Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.
'Are we sure this was a DOJ subpoena and not a phishing scheme?
Who puts their SSN into a news website profile?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048224</id>
	<title>And why are websites still keeping this info?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want to know why admins keep this information if they are running a website that could be the subject of a subpoena? Delete the fucking shit already and be done with it. Then, when the feds come knocking, you simply reply, "I'm sorry my http.conf is setup to direct logs to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null. Have a nice day."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to know why admins keep this information if they are running a website that could be the subject of a subpoena ?
Delete the fucking shit already and be done with it .
Then , when the feds come knocking , you simply reply , " I 'm sorry my http.conf is setup to direct logs to /dev/null .
Have a nice day .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to know why admins keep this information if they are running a website that could be the subject of a subpoena?
Delete the fucking shit already and be done with it.
Then, when the feds come knocking, you simply reply, "I'm sorry my http.conf is setup to direct logs to /dev/null.
Have a nice day.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048364</id>
	<title>Re:Not to disclose the request</title>
	<author>Clever7Devil</author>
	<datestamp>1257878820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And, as evidenced by this article, totally unreasonable. Not just to ask, but to expect. Meet the new boss...</htmltext>
<tokenext>And , as evidenced by this article , totally unreasonable .
Not just to ask , but to expect .
Meet the new boss.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, as evidenced by this article, totally unreasonable.
Not just to ask, but to expect.
Meet the new boss...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050796</id>
	<title>Re:And why are websites still keeping this info?</title>
	<author>Zerth</author>
	<datestamp>1257845040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe they told them to re-enable logging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe they told them to re-enable logging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe they told them to re-enable logging.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049516</id>
	<title>Retention policy</title>
	<author>Shadyman</author>
	<datestamp>1257883080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is one more reason to have a posted retention policy stating that server logs will be removed after 30/60/90 days or stripped of identifying information. You can always get historical visitor data, trends, etc. from Google Analytics (with no IPs showing) sans logfiles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is one more reason to have a posted retention policy stating that server logs will be removed after 30/60/90 days or stripped of identifying information .
You can always get historical visitor data , trends , etc .
from Google Analytics ( with no IPs showing ) sans logfiles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is one more reason to have a posted retention policy stating that server logs will be removed after 30/60/90 days or stripped of identifying information.
You can always get historical visitor data, trends, etc.
from Google Analytics (with no IPs showing) sans logfiles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050300</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1257886020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Judge Napolitano frequently says</p><p>"We have a ONE party system - the Big Government Party - and it has two branches: the republican branch and the democratic branch."</p><p>That guy's brilliant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Judge Napolitano frequently says " We have a ONE party system - the Big Government Party - and it has two branches : the republican branch and the democratic branch .
" That guy 's brilliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Judge Napolitano frequently says"We have a ONE party system - the Big Government Party - and it has two branches: the republican branch and the democratic branch.
"That guy's brilliant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048208</id>
	<title>Not to disclose the request</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The biggest worry to me is the line "...not to disclose the request".  They can issue a bogus request and get shot down via proper channels.  But asking everyone to keep it a secret smells fishy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The biggest worry to me is the line " ...not to disclose the request " .
They can issue a bogus request and get shot down via proper channels .
But asking everyone to keep it a secret smells fishy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The biggest worry to me is the line "...not to disclose the request".
They can issue a bogus request and get shot down via proper channels.
But asking everyone to keep it a secret smells fishy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051548</id>
	<title>Re:And why are websites still keeping this info?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257848160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;In my company, I'm watching them implement 15 petabyte storage solutions just to keep track of 12 months of http hits</p><p>Why doesn't your company just declare "unfunded mandate" and refuse to comply until (or if) a law is passed?</p></div><p>From the <b>OBAMA</b> administration?</p><p>The one that sends union thugs to beat up old ladies who dare to complain about Obamacare to their elected representative?</p><p><i>The Who</i> sang a song decades ago that's highly apropos the current US Administration:</p><p><a href="http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Won't-Get-Fooled-Again-lyrics-The-Who/761EF79AAB42FA9C48256977002E72F9" title="sing365.com" rel="nofollow">Won't Get Fooled Again Lyrics</a> [sing365.com]</p><p><i>We'll be fighting in the streets<br>With our children at our feet<br>And the morals that they worship will be gone<br>And the men who spurred us on<br>Sit in judgment of all wrong<br>They decide and the shotgun sings the song</i></p><p><i>I'll tip my hat to the new constitution<br>Take a bow for the new revolution<br>Smile and grin at the change all around me<br>Pick up my guitar and play<br>Just like yesterday<br>And I'll get on my knees and pray<br>We don't get fooled again<br>Don't get fooled again</i></p><p><i>Change it had to come<br>We knew it all along<br>We were liberated from the fall that's all<br>But the world looks just the same<br>And history ain't changed<br>'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war</i></p><p><i>I'll tip my hat to the new constitution<br>Take a bow for the new revolution<br>Smile and grin at the change all around me<br>Pick up my guitar and play<br>Just like yesterday<br>And I'll get on my knees and pray<br>We don't get fooled again<br>Don't get fooled again<br>No, no!</i></p><p><i>I'll move myself and my family aside<br>If we happen to be left half alive<br>I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky<br>For I know that the hypnotized never lie</i></p><p><i>Do ya?</i></p><p><i>There's nothing in the street<br>Looks any different to me<br>And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye<br>And the parting on the left<br>Is now the parting on the right<br>And the beards have all grown longer overnight</i></p><p><i>I'll tip my hat to the new constitution<br>Take a bow for the new revolution<br>Smile and grin at the <b>CHANGE</b> all around me<br>Pick up my guitar and play<br>Just like yesterday<br>Then I'll get on my knees and pray<br>We don't get fooled again<br>Don't get fooled again<br>No, no!</i></p><p><i>YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!</i></p><p><i><b>Meet the new boss<br>Same as the old boss</b> </i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; In my company , I 'm watching them implement 15 petabyte storage solutions just to keep track of 12 months of http hitsWhy does n't your company just declare " unfunded mandate " and refuse to comply until ( or if ) a law is passed ? From the OBAMA administration ? The one that sends union thugs to beat up old ladies who dare to complain about Obamacare to their elected representative ? The Who sang a song decades ago that 's highly apropos the current US Administration : Wo n't Get Fooled Again Lyrics [ sing365.com ] We 'll be fighting in the streetsWith our children at our feetAnd the morals that they worship will be goneAnd the men who spurred us onSit in judgment of all wrongThey decide and the shotgun sings the songI 'll tip my hat to the new constitutionTake a bow for the new revolutionSmile and grin at the change all around mePick up my guitar and playJust like yesterdayAnd I 'll get on my knees and prayWe do n't get fooled againDo n't get fooled againChange it had to comeWe knew it all alongWe were liberated from the fall that 's allBut the world looks just the sameAnd history ai n't changed'Cause the banners , they all flown in the last warI 'll tip my hat to the new constitutionTake a bow for the new revolutionSmile and grin at the change all around mePick up my guitar and playJust like yesterdayAnd I 'll get on my knees and prayWe do n't get fooled againDo n't get fooled againNo , no ! I 'll move myself and my family asideIf we happen to be left half aliveI 'll get all my papers and smile at the skyFor I know that the hypnotized never lieDo ya ? There 's nothing in the streetLooks any different to meAnd the slogans are replaced , by-the-byeAnd the parting on the leftIs now the parting on the rightAnd the beards have all grown longer overnightI 'll tip my hat to the new constitutionTake a bow for the new revolutionSmile and grin at the CHANGE all around mePick up my guitar and playJust like yesterdayThen I 'll get on my knees and prayWe do n't get fooled againDo n't get fooled againNo , no ! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH ! Meet the new bossSame as the old boss</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;In my company, I'm watching them implement 15 petabyte storage solutions just to keep track of 12 months of http hitsWhy doesn't your company just declare "unfunded mandate" and refuse to comply until (or if) a law is passed?From the OBAMA administration?The one that sends union thugs to beat up old ladies who dare to complain about Obamacare to their elected representative?The Who sang a song decades ago that's highly apropos the current US Administration:Won't Get Fooled Again Lyrics [sing365.com]We'll be fighting in the streetsWith our children at our feetAnd the morals that they worship will be goneAnd the men who spurred us onSit in judgment of all wrongThey decide and the shotgun sings the songI'll tip my hat to the new constitutionTake a bow for the new revolutionSmile and grin at the change all around mePick up my guitar and playJust like yesterdayAnd I'll get on my knees and prayWe don't get fooled againDon't get fooled againChange it had to comeWe knew it all alongWe were liberated from the fall that's allBut the world looks just the sameAnd history ain't changed'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last warI'll tip my hat to the new constitutionTake a bow for the new revolutionSmile and grin at the change all around mePick up my guitar and playJust like yesterdayAnd I'll get on my knees and prayWe don't get fooled againDon't get fooled againNo, no!I'll move myself and my family asideIf we happen to be left half aliveI'll get all my papers and smile at the skyFor I know that the hypnotized never lieDo ya?There's nothing in the streetLooks any different to meAnd the slogans are replaced, by-the-byeAnd the parting on the leftIs now the parting on the rightAnd the beards have all grown longer overnightI'll tip my hat to the new constitutionTake a bow for the new revolutionSmile and grin at the CHANGE all around mePick up my guitar and playJust like yesterdayThen I'll get on my knees and prayWe don't get fooled againDon't get fooled againNo, no!YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!Meet the new bossSame as the old boss 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050480</id>
	<title>Re:And why are websites still keeping this info?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257843600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I want to know why admins keep this information if they are running a website that could be the subject of a subpoena?</p></div></blockquote><p>Indymedia used to have a policy against keeping <em>any</em> logs of network traffic for exactly this reason.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to know why admins keep this information if they are running a website that could be the subject of a subpoena ? Indymedia used to have a policy against keeping any logs of network traffic for exactly this reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to know why admins keep this information if they are running a website that could be the subject of a subpoena?Indymedia used to have a policy against keeping any logs of network traffic for exactly this reason.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051976</id>
	<title>Re:That's change I can believe in</title>
	<author>seandiggity</author>
	<datestamp>1257849720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a long shot and a conspiracy theory, though.</p></div><p>There's another word for it: "absurd".  There's no other way for the Obama administration to kill subpoenas like this?  Cuz Obama has, um...no power over the Justice Dept, right?  This is as bad as the theories that Obama was just placating white conservative voters in the election campaign, only to "unmask" himself the day after inauguration as a progressive...
<br> <br>I know you made it clear how silly what you were writing was, but then there's no need to entertain the idea.  Unless some small part of you believes it could happen...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a long shot and a conspiracy theory , though.There 's another word for it : " absurd " .
There 's no other way for the Obama administration to kill subpoenas like this ?
Cuz Obama has , um...no power over the Justice Dept , right ?
This is as bad as the theories that Obama was just placating white conservative voters in the election campaign , only to " unmask " himself the day after inauguration as a progressive.. . I know you made it clear how silly what you were writing was , but then there 's no need to entertain the idea .
Unless some small part of you believes it could happen.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a long shot and a conspiracy theory, though.There's another word for it: "absurd".
There's no other way for the Obama administration to kill subpoenas like this?
Cuz Obama has, um...no power over the Justice Dept, right?
This is as bad as the theories that Obama was just placating white conservative voters in the election campaign, only to "unmask" himself the day after inauguration as a progressive...
 I know you made it clear how silly what you were writing was, but then there's no need to entertain the idea.
Unless some small part of you believes it could happen...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30052950</id>
	<title>Chew a new hole.</title>
	<author>daedlanth</author>
	<datestamp>1257853980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just leave the Anarchist Arguement Club alone. Now you've asked for it!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just leave the Anarchist Arguement Club alone .
Now you 've asked for it ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just leave the Anarchist Arguement Club alone.
Now you've asked for it!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049880</id>
	<title>The date</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257884520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>One question that I haven't seen asked yet is why June 25, 2008?  A scan of indymedia's articles didn't turn up anything earth shattering on that day or the day before.  Thoughts?</htmltext>
<tokenext>One question that I have n't seen asked yet is why June 25 , 2008 ?
A scan of indymedia 's articles did n't turn up anything earth shattering on that day or the day before .
Thoughts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One question that I haven't seen asked yet is why June 25, 2008?
A scan of indymedia's articles didn't turn up anything earth shattering on that day or the day before.
Thoughts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048980</id>
	<title>Re:And why are websites still keeping this info?</title>
	<author>mdm-adph</author>
	<datestamp>1257881040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't that crap thrown out when somebody finally told them that after a server's shut down, the RAM information is, you know, not there anymore?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't that crap thrown out when somebody finally told them that after a server 's shut down , the RAM information is , you know , not there anymore ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't that crap thrown out when somebody finally told them that after a server's shut down, the RAM information is, you know, not there anymore?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050260</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>CDPS</author>
	<datestamp>1257885840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rubbish.  Find me a liberal outside of the US Gov that supports this--under any administration.  Bet you cannot.  I certainly do not.  However, while some right wingers will be outraged by this because of Obama, had it been Bush or another Repub doing it, they would have supported the move.  This is easy to *prove* simply by going back to what was being said over the last few years by right wingers regarding warrantless wiretaps and the like.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rubbish .
Find me a liberal outside of the US Gov that supports this--under any administration .
Bet you can not .
I certainly do not .
However , while some right wingers will be outraged by this because of Obama , had it been Bush or another Repub doing it , they would have supported the move .
This is easy to * prove * simply by going back to what was being said over the last few years by right wingers regarding warrantless wiretaps and the like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rubbish.
Find me a liberal outside of the US Gov that supports this--under any administration.
Bet you cannot.
I certainly do not.
However, while some right wingers will be outraged by this because of Obama, had it been Bush or another Repub doing it, they would have supported the move.
This is easy to *prove* simply by going back to what was being said over the last few years by right wingers regarding warrantless wiretaps and the like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049584</id>
	<title>Re:Not to disclose the request</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257883380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This sounds fishy is yeah. They are fishing. I think that an article was ran with a single news agency and they are trying to pin point an IP address to an area. Run the article and see who reads it within a specific area. Then the feds will search that area for the suspect. That is what it sounds like to me. The DOJ is hoping they will just turn over things to them without issue. In other words, the DOJ thinks of us as sheeple.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This sounds fishy is yeah .
They are fishing .
I think that an article was ran with a single news agency and they are trying to pin point an IP address to an area .
Run the article and see who reads it within a specific area .
Then the feds will search that area for the suspect .
That is what it sounds like to me .
The DOJ is hoping they will just turn over things to them without issue .
In other words , the DOJ thinks of us as sheeple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This sounds fishy is yeah.
They are fishing.
I think that an article was ran with a single news agency and they are trying to pin point an IP address to an area.
Run the article and see who reads it within a specific area.
Then the feds will search that area for the suspect.
That is what it sounds like to me.
The DOJ is hoping they will just turn over things to them without issue.
In other words, the DOJ thinks of us as sheeple.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048802</id>
	<title>Re:And why are websites still keeping this info?</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1257880260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here, have a dump:<br> <br>
100110010111010100100101101001110101010101<br>
100110101110010101010100000000110110101010<br>
001011010010100101100110011010000000111110<br>
000000000000000100101110110100011010010100<br> <br>
I'll send you some more as soon as I finish formatting it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here , have a dump : 100110010111010100100101101001110101010101 100110101110010101010100000000110110101010 001011010010100101100110011010000000111110 000000000000000100101110110100011010010100 I 'll send you some more as soon as I finish formatting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here, have a dump: 
100110010111010100100101101001110101010101
100110101110010101010100000000110110101010
001011010010100101100110011010000000111110
000000000000000100101110110100011010010100 
I'll send you some more as soon as I finish formatting it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048648</id>
	<title>Holy old news-A summary in disguise.</title>
	<author>Seakip18</author>
	<datestamp>1257879720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok. The news article is new, but the content is anything but.</p><p>The subpoena was withdrawn in <a href="http://www.eff.org/files/DOJ-letter.pdf" title="eff.org">a one sentence letter</a> [eff.org] in late Feburary 2009 after the EFF sent <a href="http://www.eff.org/files/1st-letter-from-eff.pdf" title="eff.org">a letter</a> [eff.org] to the DOJ pointing out the problems with the subpeona.</p><p>We're only hearing about all of it now. It is troubling that the DOJ will not come out and say what the original motivation for even sending the subpoena in the first and is being mum about it all.</p><p>On top of that, the dates are all mixed up. The subpoena was sent in June 2008, according to the CBS article. However, the EFF says it wasn't received until January 30th 2009. This is important to note as Obama took office the <strong>20th</strong>. The EFF's letter was sent Feb. 13th, with a return letter from the DOJ on the 25th.</p><p>My guess, it was probably a rookie lawyer who sent a badly worded request to SysAdmin during the confusion of a new president taking office.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok. The news article is new , but the content is anything but.The subpoena was withdrawn in a one sentence letter [ eff.org ] in late Feburary 2009 after the EFF sent a letter [ eff.org ] to the DOJ pointing out the problems with the subpeona.We 're only hearing about all of it now .
It is troubling that the DOJ will not come out and say what the original motivation for even sending the subpoena in the first and is being mum about it all.On top of that , the dates are all mixed up .
The subpoena was sent in June 2008 , according to the CBS article .
However , the EFF says it was n't received until January 30th 2009 .
This is important to note as Obama took office the 20th .
The EFF 's letter was sent Feb. 13th , with a return letter from the DOJ on the 25th.My guess , it was probably a rookie lawyer who sent a badly worded request to SysAdmin during the confusion of a new president taking office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok. The news article is new, but the content is anything but.The subpoena was withdrawn in a one sentence letter [eff.org] in late Feburary 2009 after the EFF sent a letter [eff.org] to the DOJ pointing out the problems with the subpeona.We're only hearing about all of it now.
It is troubling that the DOJ will not come out and say what the original motivation for even sending the subpoena in the first and is being mum about it all.On top of that, the dates are all mixed up.
The subpoena was sent in June 2008, according to the CBS article.
However, the EFF says it wasn't received until January 30th 2009.
This is important to note as Obama took office the 20th.
The EFF's letter was sent Feb. 13th, with a return letter from the DOJ on the 25th.My guess, it was probably a rookie lawyer who sent a badly worded request to SysAdmin during the confusion of a new president taking office.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048770</id>
	<title>Re:Not to disclose the request</title>
	<author>roguetrick</author>
	<datestamp>1257880200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read the eff analysis, they say its not only fishy but legally unfounded in this sort of case.  If it was a court order and was targeted it would have been legal witgh the gag order.  But this was a shotgun blast with a grand jury</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the eff analysis , they say its not only fishy but legally unfounded in this sort of case .
If it was a court order and was targeted it would have been legal witgh the gag order .
But this was a shotgun blast with a grand jury</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the eff analysis, they say its not only fishy but legally unfounded in this sort of case.
If it was a court order and was targeted it would have been legal witgh the gag order.
But this was a shotgun blast with a grand jury</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048824</id>
	<title>Re:Holy old news-A summary in disguise.</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1257880440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>My guess, it was probably a rookie lawyer who sent a badly worded request to SysAdmin during the confusion of a new president taking office.</p></div><p>Actually, my guess would be it was sent by a seasoned lawyer who hoped to slip it through during the transition knowing that neither the departing Administration nor the incoming Administration would back such a politically hot potato move.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>My guess , it was probably a rookie lawyer who sent a badly worded request to SysAdmin during the confusion of a new president taking office.Actually , my guess would be it was sent by a seasoned lawyer who hoped to slip it through during the transition knowing that neither the departing Administration nor the incoming Administration would back such a politically hot potato move .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My guess, it was probably a rookie lawyer who sent a badly worded request to SysAdmin during the confusion of a new president taking office.Actually, my guess would be it was sent by a seasoned lawyer who hoped to slip it through during the transition knowing that neither the departing Administration nor the incoming Administration would back such a politically hot potato move.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049900</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257884640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about the Liberal President and his staff trying to stifle the free speech of Fox News?  Or do you just look the other way when you agree with the fascist tactics of the current administration?</p><p>Really, Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter they both will abuse their power to try to control the message.  American "liberals" have far more in common with National Socialists (aks NAZIs) than they do with classical liberalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about the Liberal President and his staff trying to stifle the free speech of Fox News ?
Or do you just look the other way when you agree with the fascist tactics of the current administration ? Really , Democrat or Republican , it does n't matter they both will abuse their power to try to control the message .
American " liberals " have far more in common with National Socialists ( aks NAZIs ) than they do with classical liberalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about the Liberal President and his staff trying to stifle the free speech of Fox News?
Or do you just look the other way when you agree with the fascist tactics of the current administration?Really, Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter they both will abuse their power to try to control the message.
American "liberals" have far more in common with National Socialists (aks NAZIs) than they do with classical liberalism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048206</id>
	<title>That's change I can believe in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say hello to the new boss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say hello to the new boss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say hello to the new boss.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050216</id>
	<title>Re:And why are websites still keeping this info?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257885660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just mail them the RAM Dimms. Case closed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just mail them the RAM Dimms .
Case closed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just mail them the RAM Dimms.
Case closed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049220</id>
	<title>Re:That's change I can believe in</title>
	<author>iluvcapra</author>
	<datestamp>1257881940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a long shot, but this might be the Obama administration's way of killing these kinds of subpoenas.</p><p>If BHO, the Attorney-General and the Secretary of Homeland Security decided to stop issuing these subpoenas, that would last at least 4 years and maybe eight, but that would be it.  If Congress passed a law that forbade him from issuing these subpoenas pro se, he might abide by it, but the next guy might not, would be able to tie it up in the courts, and the courts might eventually let the thing pass.</p><p>However, if he sends out a subpoena to someone who isn't really doing anything wrong, who is likely to fight the case tooth and nail, and if the admin makes the demands of the subpoena so egregious that no court in their right mind would find it acceptible, he might be able to extract a ruling from the supreme court that says these subpoenas are illegal, or at least get good language for a test on their reasonableness.  It's very sneaky but for a lawyerly mind it has a certain elegance.  The upshot is that no president can ever again send out these kinds of subpoena, by order of the supreme court, and all the while the administration looks like a zealous investigator.</p><p>It's a long shot and a conspiracy theory, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a long shot , but this might be the Obama administration 's way of killing these kinds of subpoenas.If BHO , the Attorney-General and the Secretary of Homeland Security decided to stop issuing these subpoenas , that would last at least 4 years and maybe eight , but that would be it .
If Congress passed a law that forbade him from issuing these subpoenas pro se , he might abide by it , but the next guy might not , would be able to tie it up in the courts , and the courts might eventually let the thing pass.However , if he sends out a subpoena to someone who is n't really doing anything wrong , who is likely to fight the case tooth and nail , and if the admin makes the demands of the subpoena so egregious that no court in their right mind would find it acceptible , he might be able to extract a ruling from the supreme court that says these subpoenas are illegal , or at least get good language for a test on their reasonableness .
It 's very sneaky but for a lawyerly mind it has a certain elegance .
The upshot is that no president can ever again send out these kinds of subpoena , by order of the supreme court , and all the while the administration looks like a zealous investigator.It 's a long shot and a conspiracy theory , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a long shot, but this might be the Obama administration's way of killing these kinds of subpoenas.If BHO, the Attorney-General and the Secretary of Homeland Security decided to stop issuing these subpoenas, that would last at least 4 years and maybe eight, but that would be it.
If Congress passed a law that forbade him from issuing these subpoenas pro se, he might abide by it, but the next guy might not, would be able to tie it up in the courts, and the courts might eventually let the thing pass.However, if he sends out a subpoena to someone who isn't really doing anything wrong, who is likely to fight the case tooth and nail, and if the admin makes the demands of the subpoena so egregious that no court in their right mind would find it acceptible, he might be able to extract a ruling from the supreme court that says these subpoenas are illegal, or at least get good language for a test on their reasonableness.
It's very sneaky but for a lawyerly mind it has a certain elegance.
The upshot is that no president can ever again send out these kinds of subpoena, by order of the supreme court, and all the while the administration looks like a zealous investigator.It's a long shot and a conspiracy theory, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048580</id>
	<title>Just checked here - no logs beyond 9/2008.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257879540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, I don't have any logs since before 9/2008, but I'm thinking about a 4 month retention policy on logs.</p><p>Obviously, I don't run a high traffic site.</p><p>Good enough to get started:<br>
&nbsp; find . -mtime +160 -exec sudo rm -f {} \;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , I do n't have any logs since before 9/2008 , but I 'm thinking about a 4 month retention policy on logs.Obviously , I do n't run a high traffic site.Good enough to get started :   find .
-mtime + 160 -exec sudo rm -f { } \ ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, I don't have any logs since before 9/2008, but I'm thinking about a 4 month retention policy on logs.Obviously, I don't run a high traffic site.Good enough to get started:
  find .
-mtime +160 -exec sudo rm -f {} \;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048220</id>
	<title>Don't hang onto visitor stats</title>
	<author>j\_presper\_eckert</author>
	<datestamp>1257878340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whaaaaat, Your Honor??? Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome my 24-hour-data-retention-policy is!

<br>
Fuck that subpeona.
<br>
In the ear.
<br>
With a Siberian ice dildo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whaaaaat , Your Honor ? ? ?
Sorry , I ca n't hear you over the sound of how awesome my 24-hour-data-retention-policy is !
Fuck that subpeona .
In the ear .
With a Siberian ice dildo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whaaaaat, Your Honor???
Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome my 24-hour-data-retention-policy is!
Fuck that subpeona.
In the ear.
With a Siberian ice dildo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050248</id>
	<title>Re:And why are websites still keeping this info?</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1257885780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;In my company, I'm watching them implement 15 petabyte storage solutions just to keep track of 12 months of http hits</p><p>Why doesn't your company just declare "unfunded mandate" and refuse to comply until (or if) a law is passed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; In my company , I 'm watching them implement 15 petabyte storage solutions just to keep track of 12 months of http hitsWhy does n't your company just declare " unfunded mandate " and refuse to comply until ( or if ) a law is passed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;In my company, I'm watching them implement 15 petabyte storage solutions just to keep track of 12 months of http hitsWhy doesn't your company just declare "unfunded mandate" and refuse to comply until (or if) a law is passed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051866</id>
	<title>Re:The date</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257849300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was one year to the day before the deaths of Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson.<br>Coincidence, I think not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was one year to the day before the deaths of Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson.Coincidence , I think not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was one year to the day before the deaths of Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson.Coincidence, I think not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048514</id>
	<title>Re:Don't hang onto visitor stats</title>
	<author>NervousWreck</author>
	<datestamp>1257879360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perfect! I love it. Especially since Siberian ice dildos have deep cultural/historical significance in my extended family. Hey! can I sue you for using the term?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perfect !
I love it .
Especially since Siberian ice dildos have deep cultural/historical significance in my extended family .
Hey ! can I sue you for using the term ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perfect!
I love it.
Especially since Siberian ice dildos have deep cultural/historical significance in my extended family.
Hey! can I sue you for using the term?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049172</id>
	<title>Re:Not to disclose the request</title>
	<author>epiphani</author>
	<datestamp>1257881640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It actually says something much much louder... that they issue these requests ALL the time and they regularly get them answered.</p><p>This was fought because it went to a small, independent admin.  How much do you want to bet that these requests go out to larger companies and get answered quickly and quietly without us ever hearing about it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It actually says something much much louder... that they issue these requests ALL the time and they regularly get them answered.This was fought because it went to a small , independent admin .
How much do you want to bet that these requests go out to larger companies and get answered quickly and quietly without us ever hearing about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It actually says something much much louder... that they issue these requests ALL the time and they regularly get them answered.This was fought because it went to a small, independent admin.
How much do you want to bet that these requests go out to larger companies and get answered quickly and quietly without us ever hearing about it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30056284</id>
	<title>Re:That's change I can believe in</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257875160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There's no other way for the Obama administration to kill subpoenas like this?</i></p><p>First let me say if this is an Obama ploy I disagree with it.  With that out of the way, there is no way for Obama to stop a president that follows him from trying to issue a subpoena.  Without a law or a court order, which didn't work to stop the second Bush, there's no way Obama can stop the president that follows him.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no other way for the Obama administration to kill subpoenas like this ? First let me say if this is an Obama ploy I disagree with it .
With that out of the way , there is no way for Obama to stop a president that follows him from trying to issue a subpoena .
Without a law or a court order , which did n't work to stop the second Bush , there 's no way Obama can stop the president that follows him .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no other way for the Obama administration to kill subpoenas like this?First let me say if this is an Obama ploy I disagree with it.
With that out of the way, there is no way for Obama to stop a president that follows him from trying to issue a subpoena.
Without a law or a court order, which didn't work to stop the second Bush, there's no way Obama can stop the president that follows him.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30069830</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Really? When was the last time you heard of a "liberal" judge or federal prosecutor trying to stomp on free speech?</p></div><p>Last time I watched Faux News, or listened to Hannity's radio, or Rush's show. If you're looking for specifics Shawn Hannity spent most of the spring of 09 screaming about the death of conservative radio due to the Liberals in Washington trying to suppress his free speech, and pretty much every talking head conservative on TV will rant about liberal activist judges etc. If you want another example take any God vs. Darwin in the schools debate, the conservatives will usually yell bloody murder about the liberals stomping on their free speech rights. And so on.</p><p>Both "sides" will say whatever they can about the other in order to whip up more support amongst their fanbase. Most of the time they don't get a red cent about the issue, they just want the "support" i.e. money.<br>Most normal, rational people fall somewhere in between, but will be lumped in with the "other side" by each side in turn when their views aren't in step.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
When was the last time you heard of a " liberal " judge or federal prosecutor trying to stomp on free speech ? Last time I watched Faux News , or listened to Hannity 's radio , or Rush 's show .
If you 're looking for specifics Shawn Hannity spent most of the spring of 09 screaming about the death of conservative radio due to the Liberals in Washington trying to suppress his free speech , and pretty much every talking head conservative on TV will rant about liberal activist judges etc .
If you want another example take any God vs. Darwin in the schools debate , the conservatives will usually yell bloody murder about the liberals stomping on their free speech rights .
And so on.Both " sides " will say whatever they can about the other in order to whip up more support amongst their fanbase .
Most of the time they do n't get a red cent about the issue , they just want the " support " i.e .
money.Most normal , rational people fall somewhere in between , but will be lumped in with the " other side " by each side in turn when their views are n't in step .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
When was the last time you heard of a "liberal" judge or federal prosecutor trying to stomp on free speech?Last time I watched Faux News, or listened to Hannity's radio, or Rush's show.
If you're looking for specifics Shawn Hannity spent most of the spring of 09 screaming about the death of conservative radio due to the Liberals in Washington trying to suppress his free speech, and pretty much every talking head conservative on TV will rant about liberal activist judges etc.
If you want another example take any God vs. Darwin in the schools debate, the conservatives will usually yell bloody murder about the liberals stomping on their free speech rights.
And so on.Both "sides" will say whatever they can about the other in order to whip up more support amongst their fanbase.
Most of the time they don't get a red cent about the issue, they just want the "support" i.e.
money.Most normal, rational people fall somewhere in between, but will be lumped in with the "other side" by each side in turn when their views aren't in step.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30056120</id>
	<title>Re:The date</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257873420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One question that I haven't seen asked yet is why June 25, 2008?  A scan of indymedia's articles didn't turn up anything earth shattering on that day or the day before.  Thoughts?</p></div><p>Could this be why?  http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/academics/degree\_programs/pepm/documents/IEA\%20Congress\_programme.pdf</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One question that I have n't seen asked yet is why June 25 , 2008 ?
A scan of indymedia 's articles did n't turn up anything earth shattering on that day or the day before .
Thoughts ? Could this be why ?
http : //www.sipa.columbia.edu/academics/degree \ _programs/pepm/documents/IEA \ % 20Congress \ _programme.pdf</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One question that I haven't seen asked yet is why June 25, 2008?
A scan of indymedia's articles didn't turn up anything earth shattering on that day or the day before.
Thoughts?Could this be why?
http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/academics/degree\_programs/pepm/documents/IEA\%20Congress\_programme.pdf
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048130</id>
	<title>Niggers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>are such jigaboos because they have the highest incarceration rate and the highest children-out-of-wedlock rate and somehow they don't see that as a problem that they need to take care of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>are such jigaboos because they have the highest incarceration rate and the highest children-out-of-wedlock rate and somehow they do n't see that as a problem that they need to take care of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are such jigaboos because they have the highest incarceration rate and the highest children-out-of-wedlock rate and somehow they don't see that as a problem that they need to take care of.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049382</id>
	<title>Because</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257882540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I want to know why admins keep this information if they are running a website that could be the subject of a subpoena?</p></div> </blockquote><p>
Before answering your question, let me address that weird "if they are running a website that could be the subject of a subpoena" qualifier.  Does that somehow distinguish any website from any other?  Nobody knows they're not ever going to be a subpoena, so let's be clear: we're talking about <em>all</em> computer admins (website or other) here.
</p><p>
So.. why do people keep logs?  Because it's easy; disk space is cheap.  And some day, I might want to reanalyze my traffic in a way that I haven't though of, or stored summaries of, yet.  Who knows what sort of traffic analysis report my boss (or I!) might want next week?  Storing the raw data is a way to deal with that.
</p><p>
But yeah.. this comes with risk.  Do I think I might be subpoenaed someday, and therefore my users will get screwed?  No, I don't think it will happen, just like I don't think I'll get killed in a car accident on the way home tonight. IndyMedia's people probably had the same attitude.  And yes, risks with small probabilities do sometimes happen, so it's worth thinking "what if?"  I don't know if that's enough to change my log storage policies, though.
</p><p>
It can't happen to m~f7dsgNO CARRIER</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to know why admins keep this information if they are running a website that could be the subject of a subpoena ?
Before answering your question , let me address that weird " if they are running a website that could be the subject of a subpoena " qualifier .
Does that somehow distinguish any website from any other ?
Nobody knows they 're not ever going to be a subpoena , so let 's be clear : we 're talking about all computer admins ( website or other ) here .
So.. why do people keep logs ?
Because it 's easy ; disk space is cheap .
And some day , I might want to reanalyze my traffic in a way that I have n't though of , or stored summaries of , yet .
Who knows what sort of traffic analysis report my boss ( or I !
) might want next week ?
Storing the raw data is a way to deal with that .
But yeah.. this comes with risk .
Do I think I might be subpoenaed someday , and therefore my users will get screwed ?
No , I do n't think it will happen , just like I do n't think I 'll get killed in a car accident on the way home tonight .
IndyMedia 's people probably had the same attitude .
And yes , risks with small probabilities do sometimes happen , so it 's worth thinking " what if ?
" I do n't know if that 's enough to change my log storage policies , though .
It ca n't happen to m ~ f7dsgNO CARRIER</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to know why admins keep this information if they are running a website that could be the subject of a subpoena?
Before answering your question, let me address that weird "if they are running a website that could be the subject of a subpoena" qualifier.
Does that somehow distinguish any website from any other?
Nobody knows they're not ever going to be a subpoena, so let's be clear: we're talking about all computer admins (website or other) here.
So.. why do people keep logs?
Because it's easy; disk space is cheap.
And some day, I might want to reanalyze my traffic in a way that I haven't though of, or stored summaries of, yet.
Who knows what sort of traffic analysis report my boss (or I!
) might want next week?
Storing the raw data is a way to deal with that.
But yeah.. this comes with risk.
Do I think I might be subpoenaed someday, and therefore my users will get screwed?
No, I don't think it will happen, just like I don't think I'll get killed in a car accident on the way home tonight.
IndyMedia's people probably had the same attitude.
And yes, risks with small probabilities do sometimes happen, so it's worth thinking "what if?
"  I don't know if that's enough to change my log storage policies, though.
It can't happen to m~f7dsgNO CARRIER
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30056858</id>
	<title>Meet the new boss...</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1257880560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same as the old.  What do you expect?  Just as I feared Obama is turning out to be a bad choice.  I am disgusted I voted for him.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same as the old .
What do you expect ?
Just as I feared Obama is turning out to be a bad choice .
I am disgusted I voted for him .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same as the old.
What do you expect?
Just as I feared Obama is turning out to be a bad choice.
I am disgusted I voted for him.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050156</id>
	<title>What were they interested in?</title>
	<author>zogger</author>
	<datestamp>1257885420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On that date? What was the big scary story to them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On that date ?
What was the big scary story to them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On that date?
What was the big scary story to them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30053332</id>
	<title>trust me</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1257856080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you do NOT want the siberian ice dildo treatment, especially in the ear. its been tried and it works:</p><blockquote><div><p>Trotsky helped lead the 1917 Russian Revolution, but split with Josef Stalin and fled to Mexico in 1937, accusing Stalin of betraying the revolution. Stalin is widely believed to have arranged Trotsky's Aug. 20, 1940, murder, in which a man sneaked up behind Trotsky and sank the icepick into his skull.</p></div></blockquote><p><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8543908/" title="msn.com">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8543908/</a> [msn.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you do NOT want the siberian ice dildo treatment , especially in the ear .
its been tried and it works : Trotsky helped lead the 1917 Russian Revolution , but split with Josef Stalin and fled to Mexico in 1937 , accusing Stalin of betraying the revolution .
Stalin is widely believed to have arranged Trotsky 's Aug. 20 , 1940 , murder , in which a man sneaked up behind Trotsky and sank the icepick into his skull.http : //www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8543908/ [ msn.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you do NOT want the siberian ice dildo treatment, especially in the ear.
its been tried and it works:Trotsky helped lead the 1917 Russian Revolution, but split with Josef Stalin and fled to Mexico in 1937, accusing Stalin of betraying the revolution.
Stalin is widely believed to have arranged Trotsky's Aug. 20, 1940, murder, in which a man sneaked up behind Trotsky and sank the icepick into his skull.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8543908/ [msn.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30052148</id>
	<title>That old trick again!</title>
	<author>SlideGuitar</author>
	<datestamp>1257850500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah yes... the old triple double cross with a backflip onto the reverse side of a mobius strip.   It gets them every time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes... the old triple double cross with a backflip onto the reverse side of a mobius strip .
It gets them every time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes... the old triple double cross with a backflip onto the reverse side of a mobius strip.
It gets them every time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048668</id>
	<title>Re:And why are websites still keeping this info?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257879780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why data should be kept in WOM - write-only memory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why data should be kept in WOM - write-only memory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why data should be kept in WOM - write-only memory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048314</id>
	<title>This is change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder how long it will be until states start seceding from the union.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how long it will be until states start seceding from the union .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how long it will be until states start seceding from the union.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050746</id>
	<title>Re:Don't hang onto visitor stats</title>
	<author>Paracelcus</author>
	<datestamp>1257844740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A battery backed RAM disk (DRAM not SRAM) with a large red button to interrupt power to the PC and the RAM disk!</p><p>Ooops! I musta kicked out that pesky wire again, damn!</p><p>You could call it a patriot act HDD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A battery backed RAM disk ( DRAM not SRAM ) with a large red button to interrupt power to the PC and the RAM disk ! Ooops !
I musta kicked out that pesky wire again , damn ! You could call it a patriot act HDD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A battery backed RAM disk (DRAM not SRAM) with a large red button to interrupt power to the PC and the RAM disk!Ooops!
I musta kicked out that pesky wire again, damn!You could call it a patriot act HDD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049362</id>
	<title>Re:A question</title>
	<author>\_LORAX\_</author>
	<datestamp>1257882480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The subpoena was for traffic and that would cover both the readers, commenter, and journalists reading and posting on that day.  Besides being overbroad on it's face the gag order is clearly unconstitutional.  Even if it didn't have the gag and was more specific 1st amendment privilege could be used to defend the "doe's" against the unreasonable release of their stored information unless they targeted non-protected speech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The subpoena was for traffic and that would cover both the readers , commenter , and journalists reading and posting on that day .
Besides being overbroad on it 's face the gag order is clearly unconstitutional .
Even if it did n't have the gag and was more specific 1st amendment privilege could be used to defend the " doe 's " against the unreasonable release of their stored information unless they targeted non-protected speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The subpoena was for traffic and that would cover both the readers, commenter, and journalists reading and posting on that day.
Besides being overbroad on it's face the gag order is clearly unconstitutional.
Even if it didn't have the gag and was more specific 1st amendment privilege could be used to defend the "doe's" against the unreasonable release of their stored information unless they targeted non-protected speech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048982</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30053562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30055598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30056858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30052148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30053332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30069830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30056284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30052876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30057478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30052590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30056120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_10_1727220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1727220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30053332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1727220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1727220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050248
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048668
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048980
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050796
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1727220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1727220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048976
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30069830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1727220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30055598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048756
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1727220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30050156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1727220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1727220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30056858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1727220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30052876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30052590
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1727220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30053562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30056120
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1727220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30049220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30057478
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30051976
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30056284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30052148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_10_1727220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_10_1727220.30048272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
