<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_17_0051239</id>
	<title>Senate To Air Findings In Web "Mystery Charge" Probe</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1258463280000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CNet reports on hearings scheduled to open tomorrow in the US Senate on <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023\_3-10399028-93.html?part=rss&amp;subj=news&amp;tag=2547-1\_3-0-20">mysterious charges on thousands of consumers' credit cards</a>. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has been investigating online loyalty programs, which shoppers encounter (often with little comprehension) on the sites of online retailers such as as Continental Airlines, FTD, and Classmates.com. <i>"At the center of the federal probe are Webloyalty, Affinion, and Vertrue, companies that make 'cash-back' and coupon offers to consumers and charge them monthly fees to enroll in their loyalty programs. ... In August, as the government's investigation rolled on, Webloyalty announced that it would alter its ads to require that consumers 'enter the last four digits of their credit or debit card to confirm' they wish to pay the membership fees. Last week, Affinion made similar changes. During the hearing, when the Senate committee is expected to make public the results of a six-month investigation, it will also likely say the alterations made by Webloyalty and Affinion don't go far enough. "</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CNet reports on hearings scheduled to open tomorrow in the US Senate on mysterious charges on thousands of consumers ' credit cards .
The Senate Committee on Commerce , Science and Transportation has been investigating online loyalty programs , which shoppers encounter ( often with little comprehension ) on the sites of online retailers such as as Continental Airlines , FTD , and Classmates.com .
" At the center of the federal probe are Webloyalty , Affinion , and Vertrue , companies that make 'cash-back ' and coupon offers to consumers and charge them monthly fees to enroll in their loyalty programs .
... In August , as the government 's investigation rolled on , Webloyalty announced that it would alter its ads to require that consumers 'enter the last four digits of their credit or debit card to confirm ' they wish to pay the membership fees .
Last week , Affinion made similar changes .
During the hearing , when the Senate committee is expected to make public the results of a six-month investigation , it will also likely say the alterations made by Webloyalty and Affinion do n't go far enough .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNet reports on hearings scheduled to open tomorrow in the US Senate on mysterious charges on thousands of consumers' credit cards.
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has been investigating online loyalty programs, which shoppers encounter (often with little comprehension) on the sites of online retailers such as as Continental Airlines, FTD, and Classmates.com.
"At the center of the federal probe are Webloyalty, Affinion, and Vertrue, companies that make 'cash-back' and coupon offers to consumers and charge them monthly fees to enroll in their loyalty programs.
... In August, as the government's investigation rolled on, Webloyalty announced that it would alter its ads to require that consumers 'enter the last four digits of their credit or debit card to confirm' they wish to pay the membership fees.
Last week, Affinion made similar changes.
During the hearing, when the Senate committee is expected to make public the results of a six-month investigation, it will also likely say the alterations made by Webloyalty and Affinion don't go far enough.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30132052</id>
	<title>Re:Where exactly do we stop at this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258486380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh noez, I thought I could get free moneiz by clicking yez on this web page that I didnt read. Save me big brother, save me!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh noez , I thought I could get free moneiz by clicking yez on this web page that I didnt read .
Save me big brother , save me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh noez, I thought I could get free moneiz by clicking yez on this web page that I didnt read.
Save me big brother, save me!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128670</id>
	<title>Scam needs ALL parties brought to justice</title>
	<author>DJRumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1258472340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They talked about this one this morning on the Today show. They said that the vendors for the website you are visiting are actually giving your credit card numbers to these 3rd parties, so when you sign up, you don't actually give them your credit card number. They instead get it from the parent site, who happily hands it over for a cut of the profits.</p><p>I have to wonder why the parent website isn't being hauled into court for giving away your credit card number? The 'authorization' given is extremely vague. You basically agree to sign up for classmates.com or whatnot, and the parent web site sends classmates your credit card info because you 'agreed' to it on the parent site. Classmates then starts charging your card for a 'membership' fee.</p><p>How has this gone on so long?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They talked about this one this morning on the Today show .
They said that the vendors for the website you are visiting are actually giving your credit card numbers to these 3rd parties , so when you sign up , you do n't actually give them your credit card number .
They instead get it from the parent site , who happily hands it over for a cut of the profits.I have to wonder why the parent website is n't being hauled into court for giving away your credit card number ?
The 'authorization ' given is extremely vague .
You basically agree to sign up for classmates.com or whatnot , and the parent web site sends classmates your credit card info because you 'agreed ' to it on the parent site .
Classmates then starts charging your card for a 'membership ' fee.How has this gone on so long ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They talked about this one this morning on the Today show.
They said that the vendors for the website you are visiting are actually giving your credit card numbers to these 3rd parties, so when you sign up, you don't actually give them your credit card number.
They instead get it from the parent site, who happily hands it over for a cut of the profits.I have to wonder why the parent website isn't being hauled into court for giving away your credit card number?
The 'authorization' given is extremely vague.
You basically agree to sign up for classmates.com or whatnot, and the parent web site sends classmates your credit card info because you 'agreed' to it on the parent site.
Classmates then starts charging your card for a 'membership' fee.How has this gone on so long?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129548</id>
	<title>Re:Could be fixed with a simple law.</title>
	<author>tibman</author>
	<datestamp>1258476240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is no such law?<br>So what is there to stop a gas station owner in backwater Kentucky to publish my CC number online?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...scary...</p></div><p>He would need internet access and a computer first.</p><p>Joking! Full disclosure: I'm living in KY</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no such law ? So what is there to stop a gas station owner in backwater Kentucky to publish my CC number online ?
...scary...He would need internet access and a computer first.Joking !
Full disclosure : I 'm living in KY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no such law?So what is there to stop a gas station owner in backwater Kentucky to publish my CC number online?
...scary...He would need internet access and a computer first.Joking!
Full disclosure: I'm living in KY
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30136188</id>
	<title>Re:CNET can't spell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258457280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to have the same problem with 'necessary' but ever since my friend pointed out it was derived from the latin 'necesse' (ne'kes.se) I have spelled it right ever since.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to have the same problem with 'necessary ' but ever since my friend pointed out it was derived from the latin 'necesse ' ( ne'kes.se ) I have spelled it right ever since .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to have the same problem with 'necessary' but ever since my friend pointed out it was derived from the latin 'necesse' (ne'kes.se) I have spelled it right ever since.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128796</id>
	<title>Affinion == Scammers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258473000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know a few people who work for Affinion.  They are a very shady company; this isn't the first time they have been investigated.  The last go around involved scamming people by sending them $5.00 checks in the mail.  If you cashed the check, it would enroll you in a program that would bill you monthly.  Looks like they are up to their old tricks, just updated for the internet!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know a few people who work for Affinion .
They are a very shady company ; this is n't the first time they have been investigated .
The last go around involved scamming people by sending them $ 5.00 checks in the mail .
If you cashed the check , it would enroll you in a program that would bill you monthly .
Looks like they are up to their old tricks , just updated for the internet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know a few people who work for Affinion.
They are a very shady company; this isn't the first time they have been investigated.
The last go around involved scamming people by sending them $5.00 checks in the mail.
If you cashed the check, it would enroll you in a program that would bill you monthly.
Looks like they are up to their old tricks, just updated for the internet!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128832</id>
	<title>Re:Could be fixed with a simple law.</title>
	<author>conlaw</author>
	<datestamp>1258473120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my experience, it hasn't been the merchants doing these add-ons; it's the credit card companies themselves.  For instance, I call BigBank, the issuer of my Visa card, to make sure that my last payment was credited on time.  I'm transferred to a customer rep who answers the question and then says, "By the way, I see that you're entitled to join our travel savings plan<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... [blah, blah, blah about the great features of the plan].  You can have a free trial starting tomorrow."  If you say anything except, "No, no, no," they automatically sign you up and then, after 10 or 25 days, X Travel Co. starts adding a "nominal fee" of $29.95 ("only pennies a day") to your card.  If X Travel Co. is an "affiliate" of BigBank and you failed to opt out when BigBank sent you the notice of its privacy policies, then you don't really have much recourse except to call BigBank, talk someone into giving you the contact information for X Travel Co., and then contacting them to stop charging you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , it has n't been the merchants doing these add-ons ; it 's the credit card companies themselves .
For instance , I call BigBank , the issuer of my Visa card , to make sure that my last payment was credited on time .
I 'm transferred to a customer rep who answers the question and then says , " By the way , I see that you 're entitled to join our travel savings plan ... [ blah , blah , blah about the great features of the plan ] .
You can have a free trial starting tomorrow .
" If you say anything except , " No , no , no , " they automatically sign you up and then , after 10 or 25 days , X Travel Co. starts adding a " nominal fee " of $ 29.95 ( " only pennies a day " ) to your card .
If X Travel Co. is an " affiliate " of BigBank and you failed to opt out when BigBank sent you the notice of its privacy policies , then you do n't really have much recourse except to call BigBank , talk someone into giving you the contact information for X Travel Co. , and then contacting them to stop charging you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, it hasn't been the merchants doing these add-ons; it's the credit card companies themselves.
For instance, I call BigBank, the issuer of my Visa card, to make sure that my last payment was credited on time.
I'm transferred to a customer rep who answers the question and then says, "By the way, I see that you're entitled to join our travel savings plan ... [blah, blah, blah about the great features of the plan].
You can have a free trial starting tomorrow.
"  If you say anything except, "No, no, no," they automatically sign you up and then, after 10 or 25 days, X Travel Co. starts adding a "nominal fee" of $29.95 ("only pennies a day") to your card.
If X Travel Co. is an "affiliate" of BigBank and you failed to opt out when BigBank sent you the notice of its privacy policies, then you don't really have much recourse except to call BigBank, talk someone into giving you the contact information for X Travel Co., and then contacting them to stop charging you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30127960</id>
	<title>It's a mystery</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258467180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I gave some dubious site my credit card and my money mysteriously went missing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I gave some dubious site my credit card and my money mysteriously went missing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I gave some dubious site my credit card and my money mysteriously went missing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30132842</id>
	<title>Re:Where exactly do we stop at this?</title>
	<author>spitzak</author>
	<datestamp>1258488960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>When offering something up like this is the company expected to just put up a big banner at the top saying, "HEY, WE ARE CHARGING YOU FOR SOMETHING IF YOU CLICK YES!" before even trying to sell the person on the product?</i></p><p>YES! That is an excellent description of exactly what should be required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When offering something up like this is the company expected to just put up a big banner at the top saying , " HEY , WE ARE CHARGING YOU FOR SOMETHING IF YOU CLICK YES !
" before even trying to sell the person on the product ? YES !
That is an excellent description of exactly what should be required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When offering something up like this is the company expected to just put up a big banner at the top saying, "HEY, WE ARE CHARGING YOU FOR SOMETHING IF YOU CLICK YES!
" before even trying to sell the person on the product?YES!
That is an excellent description of exactly what should be required.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30135884</id>
	<title>Re:I need to RTFA</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1258455840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find 3-4 grammatical errors on CNN's website per WEEK. The sad part is that they're all on the front page (I never even click the stories... just like to laugh at the headlines and what's 'big news'). I honestly don't think they even have an editor any more.</p><p>Can't someone just take them out back and shoot them already? It pains me to watch them limp around...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find 3-4 grammatical errors on CNN 's website per WEEK .
The sad part is that they 're all on the front page ( I never even click the stories... just like to laugh at the headlines and what 's 'big news ' ) .
I honestly do n't think they even have an editor any more.Ca n't someone just take them out back and shoot them already ?
It pains me to watch them limp around.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find 3-4 grammatical errors on CNN's website per WEEK.
The sad part is that they're all on the front page (I never even click the stories... just like to laugh at the headlines and what's 'big news').
I honestly don't think they even have an editor any more.Can't someone just take them out back and shoot them already?
It pains me to watch them limp around...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128526</id>
	<title>Re:It's a mystery</title>
	<author>Old97</author>
	<datestamp>1258471620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "dubious" sites are well known legitimate businesses who pass your credit card information to their "partners" without asking your permission.  So unless you consider all commerce on the internet to be "dubious", you've misunderstood the problem.  Imagine if you used your credit card at a brick and mortar Best Buy store and they signed you up for AOL based on your signature on the charge slip - without explaining first what they were doing and insuring you understood.  Oh, yeah, they've done that too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " dubious " sites are well known legitimate businesses who pass your credit card information to their " partners " without asking your permission .
So unless you consider all commerce on the internet to be " dubious " , you 've misunderstood the problem .
Imagine if you used your credit card at a brick and mortar Best Buy store and they signed you up for AOL based on your signature on the charge slip - without explaining first what they were doing and insuring you understood .
Oh , yeah , they 've done that too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "dubious" sites are well known legitimate businesses who pass your credit card information to their "partners" without asking your permission.
So unless you consider all commerce on the internet to be "dubious", you've misunderstood the problem.
Imagine if you used your credit card at a brick and mortar Best Buy store and they signed you up for AOL based on your signature on the charge slip - without explaining first what they were doing and insuring you understood.
Oh, yeah, they've done that too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30127960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129706</id>
	<title>In Other News ...</title>
	<author>The\_Quinn</author>
	<datestamp>1258476900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This just in: the government launches an investigation into certain online charges and fees!</p><p>In other news, the government takes half your money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This just in : the government launches an investigation into certain online charges and fees ! In other news , the government takes half your money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just in: the government launches an investigation into certain online charges and fees!In other news, the government takes half your money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128830</id>
	<title>Where exactly do we stop at this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258473120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much protection does the average consumer need from marketing at this point?  You're sliding down a slippery slope when you say that reading the fine print (which in the case of these offers isn't exactly that fine, there are various call outs all over these pages indicating that you are signing up for a service, that you get a month free and then pay money thereafter) is just too onerous for the average consumer and that the government must intervene to protect them.  When offering something up like this is the company expected to just put up a big banner at the top saying, "HEY, WE ARE CHARGING YOU FOR SOMETHING IF YOU CLICK YES!" before even trying to sell the person on the product?</p><p>People like to say that they didn't know what they were getting into when they clicked through on these things.  Well, how did you not know when it is spelled out in great detail on the page?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much protection does the average consumer need from marketing at this point ?
You 're sliding down a slippery slope when you say that reading the fine print ( which in the case of these offers is n't exactly that fine , there are various call outs all over these pages indicating that you are signing up for a service , that you get a month free and then pay money thereafter ) is just too onerous for the average consumer and that the government must intervene to protect them .
When offering something up like this is the company expected to just put up a big banner at the top saying , " HEY , WE ARE CHARGING YOU FOR SOMETHING IF YOU CLICK YES !
" before even trying to sell the person on the product ? People like to say that they did n't know what they were getting into when they clicked through on these things .
Well , how did you not know when it is spelled out in great detail on the page ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much protection does the average consumer need from marketing at this point?
You're sliding down a slippery slope when you say that reading the fine print (which in the case of these offers isn't exactly that fine, there are various call outs all over these pages indicating that you are signing up for a service, that you get a month free and then pay money thereafter) is just too onerous for the average consumer and that the government must intervene to protect them.
When offering something up like this is the company expected to just put up a big banner at the top saying, "HEY, WE ARE CHARGING YOU FOR SOMETHING IF YOU CLICK YES!
" before even trying to sell the person on the product?People like to say that they didn't know what they were getting into when they clicked through on these things.
Well, how did you not know when it is spelled out in great detail on the page?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129992</id>
	<title>Re:Where exactly do we stop at this?</title>
	<author>tlhIngan</author>
	<datestamp>1258478100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How much protection does the average consumer need from marketing at this point? You're sliding down a slippery slope when you say that reading the fine print (which in the case of these offers isn't exactly that fine, there are various call outs all over these pages indicating that you are signing up for a service, that you get a month free and then pay money thereafter) is just too onerous for the average consumer and that the government must intervene to protect them. When offering something up like this is the company expected to just put up a big banner at the top saying, "HEY, WE ARE CHARGING YOU FOR SOMETHING IF YOU CLICK YES!" before even trying to sell the person on the product?</p><p>People like to say that they didn't know what they were getting into when they clicked through on these things. Well, how did you not know when it is spelled out in great detail on the page?</p></div></blockquote><p>It's not that, actually. It's the scammy places where you buy your product, then they pop up another page that says "Thank you for shopping at Merchant.com". But scroll down, in fine print, it says "We also signed you up for a $10/month voicemail service. If you don't want this service, you must phone  within 24 hours." or other crap like you must click a tiny link "No, I don't want this service" instead of the big shiny "Continue" button presented higher up. Of course, the merchant and the service split the $10/month that you've now signed up for, and the "continue" button serves as "confirmation" that you agreed to the service.</p><p>The even scammier sites sign you up for stuff like "messaging products" that charge your <strong>phone bill</strong> $10/month, knowing it's practically impossible to get your phone company to remove the charge, or prevent future charges, other than changing your phone number. This often plays out in those free sweepstakes offers that people often sign up for - win a free product! or other crap.</p><p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/cram-this.ars" title="arstechnica.com">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/cram-this.ars</a> [arstechnica.com]</p><p>I suppose the merchants use it as a way for you to get 10\% off coupons and such for the next time you shop, too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much protection does the average consumer need from marketing at this point ?
You 're sliding down a slippery slope when you say that reading the fine print ( which in the case of these offers is n't exactly that fine , there are various call outs all over these pages indicating that you are signing up for a service , that you get a month free and then pay money thereafter ) is just too onerous for the average consumer and that the government must intervene to protect them .
When offering something up like this is the company expected to just put up a big banner at the top saying , " HEY , WE ARE CHARGING YOU FOR SOMETHING IF YOU CLICK YES !
" before even trying to sell the person on the product ? People like to say that they did n't know what they were getting into when they clicked through on these things .
Well , how did you not know when it is spelled out in great detail on the page ? It 's not that , actually .
It 's the scammy places where you buy your product , then they pop up another page that says " Thank you for shopping at Merchant.com " .
But scroll down , in fine print , it says " We also signed you up for a $ 10/month voicemail service .
If you do n't want this service , you must phone within 24 hours .
" or other crap like you must click a tiny link " No , I do n't want this service " instead of the big shiny " Continue " button presented higher up .
Of course , the merchant and the service split the $ 10/month that you 've now signed up for , and the " continue " button serves as " confirmation " that you agreed to the service.The even scammier sites sign you up for stuff like " messaging products " that charge your phone bill $ 10/month , knowing it 's practically impossible to get your phone company to remove the charge , or prevent future charges , other than changing your phone number .
This often plays out in those free sweepstakes offers that people often sign up for - win a free product !
or other crap.http : //arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/cram-this.ars [ arstechnica.com ] I suppose the merchants use it as a way for you to get 10 \ % off coupons and such for the next time you shop , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much protection does the average consumer need from marketing at this point?
You're sliding down a slippery slope when you say that reading the fine print (which in the case of these offers isn't exactly that fine, there are various call outs all over these pages indicating that you are signing up for a service, that you get a month free and then pay money thereafter) is just too onerous for the average consumer and that the government must intervene to protect them.
When offering something up like this is the company expected to just put up a big banner at the top saying, "HEY, WE ARE CHARGING YOU FOR SOMETHING IF YOU CLICK YES!
" before even trying to sell the person on the product?People like to say that they didn't know what they were getting into when they clicked through on these things.
Well, how did you not know when it is spelled out in great detail on the page?It's not that, actually.
It's the scammy places where you buy your product, then they pop up another page that says "Thank you for shopping at Merchant.com".
But scroll down, in fine print, it says "We also signed you up for a $10/month voicemail service.
If you don't want this service, you must phone  within 24 hours.
" or other crap like you must click a tiny link "No, I don't want this service" instead of the big shiny "Continue" button presented higher up.
Of course, the merchant and the service split the $10/month that you've now signed up for, and the "continue" button serves as "confirmation" that you agreed to the service.The even scammier sites sign you up for stuff like "messaging products" that charge your phone bill $10/month, knowing it's practically impossible to get your phone company to remove the charge, or prevent future charges, other than changing your phone number.
This often plays out in those free sweepstakes offers that people often sign up for - win a free product!
or other crap.http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/cram-this.ars [arstechnica.com]I suppose the merchants use it as a way for you to get 10\% off coupons and such for the next time you shop, too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30130716</id>
	<title>Re:CNET can't spell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258481400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are just certain aspects of the language that tend to screw us up, no matter how much we study the language.</p></div><p>Pfff. Speak for you're self, mortal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are just certain aspects of the language that tend to screw us up , no matter how much we study the language.Pfff .
Speak for you 're self , mortal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are just certain aspects of the language that tend to screw us up, no matter how much we study the language.Pfff.
Speak for you're self, mortal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128222</id>
	<title>Re:Could be fixed with a simple law.</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1258469700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no such law?<br>So what is there to stop a gas station owner in backwater Kentucky to publish my CC number online?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...scary...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no such law ? So what is there to stop a gas station owner in backwater Kentucky to publish my CC number online ?
...scary.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no such law?So what is there to stop a gas station owner in backwater Kentucky to publish my CC number online?
...scary...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128096</id>
	<title>Re:CNET can't spell</title>
	<author>ta bu shi da yu</author>
	<datestamp>1258468560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But what does it all add up to?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But what does it all add up to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what does it all add up to?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129366</id>
	<title>Re:Could be fixed with a simple law.</title>
	<author>Thaelon</author>
	<datestamp>1258475640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's incredibly shortsighted given that merchants already forward the information to processing companies, simply to validate and see if the charge will go through.</p><p>How about we simply disallow deceptive advertising?  That would fix this and a host of other bullshit besides.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's incredibly shortsighted given that merchants already forward the information to processing companies , simply to validate and see if the charge will go through.How about we simply disallow deceptive advertising ?
That would fix this and a host of other bullshit besides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's incredibly shortsighted given that merchants already forward the information to processing companies, simply to validate and see if the charge will go through.How about we simply disallow deceptive advertising?
That would fix this and a host of other bullshit besides.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128026</id>
	<title>Could be fixed with a simple law.</title>
	<author>purpledinoz</author>
	<datestamp>1258467900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A law that explicitly disallows merchants to give credit card information to another party would fix this problem. If the merchant forwards you to another party, then the user must enter the credit card information again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A law that explicitly disallows merchants to give credit card information to another party would fix this problem .
If the merchant forwards you to another party , then the user must enter the credit card information again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A law that explicitly disallows merchants to give credit card information to another party would fix this problem.
If the merchant forwards you to another party, then the user must enter the credit card information again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30127956</id>
	<title>AHA!</title>
	<author>nimbius</author>
	<datestamp>1258467120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>and you all thought the patriot act was a bad idea!  see! I was right all along, the government DOES care about us enough to make sure our fictitious plastic debt and subjugation yolks arent being defrauded before the holy alliance of judeo-christian faith and horrible shopping malls commences.  At this rate i bet bernanke was secretly a really good fed chairman...we just havent realized it yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>and you all thought the patriot act was a bad idea !
see ! I was right all along , the government DOES care about us enough to make sure our fictitious plastic debt and subjugation yolks arent being defrauded before the holy alliance of judeo-christian faith and horrible shopping malls commences .
At this rate i bet bernanke was secretly a really good fed chairman...we just havent realized it yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and you all thought the patriot act was a bad idea!
see! I was right all along, the government DOES care about us enough to make sure our fictitious plastic debt and subjugation yolks arent being defrauded before the holy alliance of judeo-christian faith and horrible shopping malls commences.
At this rate i bet bernanke was secretly a really good fed chairman...we just havent realized it yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30136104</id>
	<title>Drop the extra</title>
	<author>WeeBit</author>
	<datestamp>1258456980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe this is why the The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has the investigation in the first place.  Even if they filled out a form twice, some are bound to think the info is for the same offer.  Many times I have re-entered information and confirmed a order.  And because they are asking for the last 4 digit SSN  it makes the offer look even more like the same offer.  This would look like a confirmation to some people.  Don't let the online loyalty programs fool you... they know exactly what they are doing,  look at how long they have gotten away with it.<br><br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe this is why the The Senate Committee on Commerce , Science and Transportation has the investigation in the first place .
Even if they filled out a form twice , some are bound to think the info is for the same offer .
Many times I have re-entered information and confirmed a order .
And because they are asking for the last 4 digit SSN it makes the offer look even more like the same offer .
This would look like a confirmation to some people .
Do n't let the online loyalty programs fool you... they know exactly what they are doing , look at how long they have gotten away with it .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe this is why the The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has the investigation in the first place.
Even if they filled out a form twice, some are bound to think the info is for the same offer.
Many times I have re-entered information and confirmed a order.
And because they are asking for the last 4 digit SSN  it makes the offer look even more like the same offer.
This would look like a confirmation to some people.
Don't let the online loyalty programs fool you... they know exactly what they are doing,  look at how long they have gotten away with it.
     </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128080</id>
	<title>Credit cards..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258468440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This kind of thing is why I don't use credit cards.</p><p>You get what you ask for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This kind of thing is why I do n't use credit cards.You get what you ask for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This kind of thing is why I don't use credit cards.You get what you ask for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129032</id>
	<title>Re:Could be fixed with a simple law.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258474200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GP doesn't know what he's talking about.</p><p>Firstly:<br>Both VISA and MC do not allow 'Cross Sales' between different merchants - that is, passing your CC to another merchant.</p><p>Now, these rules exist, but are not enforced, typically unless a merchant is abusing them [IE, selling the data, passing it on without disclosure, etc]<br>About 3 months ago MC came down hard, and started enforcing its rule, due to a large amount of abuse (probably relating to this incident)</p><p>Visa is also currently in talks of shutting down / rolling up abusive merchants - they met in Europe about it about 8 days ago.</p><p>Secondly:<br>To hold, store, re-use or transfer CC information, in theory you have to be PCI compliant, which is a fairly stringent process that ensures everything is encrypted, etc, CVV data isn't held [or if it is, you need a higher level of compliance] - security of the networks, machines, sites, etc are all tested.</p><p>Now that doesn't stop your gas station owner (or anyone that doesn't care about CC rules) from taking a copy of the info - but outside of that, this is very strictly controlled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GP does n't know what he 's talking about.Firstly : Both VISA and MC do not allow 'Cross Sales ' between different merchants - that is , passing your CC to another merchant.Now , these rules exist , but are not enforced , typically unless a merchant is abusing them [ IE , selling the data , passing it on without disclosure , etc ] About 3 months ago MC came down hard , and started enforcing its rule , due to a large amount of abuse ( probably relating to this incident ) Visa is also currently in talks of shutting down / rolling up abusive merchants - they met in Europe about it about 8 days ago.Secondly : To hold , store , re-use or transfer CC information , in theory you have to be PCI compliant , which is a fairly stringent process that ensures everything is encrypted , etc , CVV data is n't held [ or if it is , you need a higher level of compliance ] - security of the networks , machines , sites , etc are all tested.Now that does n't stop your gas station owner ( or anyone that does n't care about CC rules ) from taking a copy of the info - but outside of that , this is very strictly controlled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GP doesn't know what he's talking about.Firstly:Both VISA and MC do not allow 'Cross Sales' between different merchants - that is, passing your CC to another merchant.Now, these rules exist, but are not enforced, typically unless a merchant is abusing them [IE, selling the data, passing it on without disclosure, etc]About 3 months ago MC came down hard, and started enforcing its rule, due to a large amount of abuse (probably relating to this incident)Visa is also currently in talks of shutting down / rolling up abusive merchants - they met in Europe about it about 8 days ago.Secondly:To hold, store, re-use or transfer CC information, in theory you have to be PCI compliant, which is a fairly stringent process that ensures everything is encrypted, etc, CVV data isn't held [or if it is, you need a higher level of compliance] - security of the networks, machines, sites, etc are all tested.Now that doesn't stop your gas station owner (or anyone that doesn't care about CC rules) from taking a copy of the info - but outside of that, this is very strictly controlled.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128192</id>
	<title>Happened to me</title>
	<author>dbet</author>
	<datestamp>1258469400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I got a mysterious charge on my credit card.  I looked up the company, and the only info I could find was hundreds of people complaining about that same company, and also some theories about how they were able to get people's credit card numbers (sites they're affiliated with, etc.).  They were also "uncontactable".  My bank had no trouble removing the charge, but to be safe I canceled my card and had a new one issued.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got a mysterious charge on my credit card .
I looked up the company , and the only info I could find was hundreds of people complaining about that same company , and also some theories about how they were able to get people 's credit card numbers ( sites they 're affiliated with , etc. ) .
They were also " uncontactable " .
My bank had no trouble removing the charge , but to be safe I canceled my card and had a new one issued .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got a mysterious charge on my credit card.
I looked up the company, and the only info I could find was hundreds of people complaining about that same company, and also some theories about how they were able to get people's credit card numbers (sites they're affiliated with, etc.).
They were also "uncontactable".
My bank had no trouble removing the charge, but to be safe I canceled my card and had a new one issued.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128000</id>
	<title>CNET can't spell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258467660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would alter "it's" adds?!</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would alter " it 's " adds ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would alter "it's" adds?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128136</id>
	<title>It's ads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258468980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Webloyalty announced that it would alter it's ads..."</p><p>It's its, not it's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Webloyalty announced that it would alter it 's ads... " It 's its , not it 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Webloyalty announced that it would alter it's ads..."It's its, not it's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128850</id>
	<title>Re:CNET can't spell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258473180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've got a Ph.D. and still make that mistake from time to time. Even though I know better, it's still easy to slip up. I also still screw up there/their/they're too, even though I know damn well the difference between them. And I can't spell "necessary" to save my life without a spell checker. There are just certain aspects of the language that tend to screw us up, no matter how much we study the language. Something about homophones in particular seem problematic (maybe because we unconsciously "sound out" the language in our heads as we type).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got a Ph.D. and still make that mistake from time to time .
Even though I know better , it 's still easy to slip up .
I also still screw up there/their/they 're too , even though I know damn well the difference between them .
And I ca n't spell " necessary " to save my life without a spell checker .
There are just certain aspects of the language that tend to screw us up , no matter how much we study the language .
Something about homophones in particular seem problematic ( maybe because we unconsciously " sound out " the language in our heads as we type ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got a Ph.D. and still make that mistake from time to time.
Even though I know better, it's still easy to slip up.
I also still screw up there/their/they're too, even though I know damn well the difference between them.
And I can't spell "necessary" to save my life without a spell checker.
There are just certain aspects of the language that tend to screw us up, no matter how much we study the language.
Something about homophones in particular seem problematic (maybe because we unconsciously "sound out" the language in our heads as we type).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129192</id>
	<title>Happened to me too</title>
	<author>GodfatherofSoul</author>
	<datestamp>1258475040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was being charged a monthly subscription to a porn site that I had no clue about.  At least, that's what I told my girlfriend when she saw the bill.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was being charged a monthly subscription to a porn site that I had no clue about .
At least , that 's what I told my girlfriend when she saw the bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was being charged a monthly subscription to a porn site that I had no clue about.
At least, that's what I told my girlfriend when she saw the bill.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30134084</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258449900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is Congress looking into this, instead of the criminal justice system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is Congress looking into this , instead of the criminal justice system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is Congress looking into this, instead of the criminal justice system?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30135432</id>
	<title>Re:Could be fixed with a simple law.</title>
	<author>John Whitley</author>
	<datestamp>1258454280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A law that explicitly disallows merchants to give credit card information to another party would fix this problem.</p></div><p>Here's a way to hack that.  First issue: merchants like to process these credit card transactions, too.  That means providing this info to another party, the payment processor.  I don't mean to Visa, Mastercard, etc.  I mean to the companies that comprise the various tiers of third-party payment processor services.  This includes some banks, Paypal, and a whole industry of service providers that nearly everyone (even big retailers like Amazon) have to go through in order to process payment transactions (and not just for credit cards).  So it turns out that third-parties MUST get this info.  So you say, only "payment processors" (insert handwavy legal definition here) can receive such info.</p><p>Fine, then what happens when one of these scammer companies becomes (or is bought by, etc.) a payment processor?  Back to square one, eh?  Think like someone trying to hack/game the system.</p><p>If it's possible to craft appropriate legislation that limits the transfer of payment information, that might (or might not) be a good idea.  But I'd argue that it's not so much the improper passing of information that's the issue here, it's the (fraudulent, or nearly so) piggybacking of an unauthorized transaction (or worse, subscription) onto an authorized transaction.  In the current system, passing of credentials is equivalent to "authorizing" which confuses these two issues.  On this basis, it might be more fruitful to apply and/or strengthen fraud laws as these scams are all dependent on confounding the customer to get money instead of transacting legitimate, well-informed business.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A law that explicitly disallows merchants to give credit card information to another party would fix this problem.Here 's a way to hack that .
First issue : merchants like to process these credit card transactions , too .
That means providing this info to another party , the payment processor .
I do n't mean to Visa , Mastercard , etc .
I mean to the companies that comprise the various tiers of third-party payment processor services .
This includes some banks , Paypal , and a whole industry of service providers that nearly everyone ( even big retailers like Amazon ) have to go through in order to process payment transactions ( and not just for credit cards ) .
So it turns out that third-parties MUST get this info .
So you say , only " payment processors " ( insert handwavy legal definition here ) can receive such info.Fine , then what happens when one of these scammer companies becomes ( or is bought by , etc .
) a payment processor ?
Back to square one , eh ?
Think like someone trying to hack/game the system.If it 's possible to craft appropriate legislation that limits the transfer of payment information , that might ( or might not ) be a good idea .
But I 'd argue that it 's not so much the improper passing of information that 's the issue here , it 's the ( fraudulent , or nearly so ) piggybacking of an unauthorized transaction ( or worse , subscription ) onto an authorized transaction .
In the current system , passing of credentials is equivalent to " authorizing " which confuses these two issues .
On this basis , it might be more fruitful to apply and/or strengthen fraud laws as these scams are all dependent on confounding the customer to get money instead of transacting legitimate , well-informed business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A law that explicitly disallows merchants to give credit card information to another party would fix this problem.Here's a way to hack that.
First issue: merchants like to process these credit card transactions, too.
That means providing this info to another party, the payment processor.
I don't mean to Visa, Mastercard, etc.
I mean to the companies that comprise the various tiers of third-party payment processor services.
This includes some banks, Paypal, and a whole industry of service providers that nearly everyone (even big retailers like Amazon) have to go through in order to process payment transactions (and not just for credit cards).
So it turns out that third-parties MUST get this info.
So you say, only "payment processors" (insert handwavy legal definition here) can receive such info.Fine, then what happens when one of these scammer companies becomes (or is bought by, etc.
) a payment processor?
Back to square one, eh?
Think like someone trying to hack/game the system.If it's possible to craft appropriate legislation that limits the transfer of payment information, that might (or might not) be a good idea.
But I'd argue that it's not so much the improper passing of information that's the issue here, it's the (fraudulent, or nearly so) piggybacking of an unauthorized transaction (or worse, subscription) onto an authorized transaction.
In the current system, passing of credentials is equivalent to "authorizing" which confuses these two issues.
On this basis, it might be more fruitful to apply and/or strengthen fraud laws as these scams are all dependent on confounding the customer to get money instead of transacting legitimate, well-informed business.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128242</id>
	<title>Re:CNET can't spell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258469820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It would alter "it's" adds?!</p></div><p>How embarrassing for you.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It's is a contraction for it is or it has.</p><p>Its is a possessive pronoun meaning, more or less, of it or belonging to it.</p><p>And there is absolutely, positively, no such word as its'.</p></div><p>Also, the word is "ads" or "advertisements", where did you get "adds"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would alter " it 's " adds ?
! How embarrassing for you.It 's is a contraction for it is or it has.Its is a possessive pronoun meaning , more or less , of it or belonging to it.And there is absolutely , positively , no such word as its'.Also , the word is " ads " or " advertisements " , where did you get " adds " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would alter "it's" adds?
!How embarrassing for you.It's is a contraction for it is or it has.Its is a possessive pronoun meaning, more or less, of it or belonging to it.And there is absolutely, positively, no such word as its'.Also, the word is "ads" or "advertisements", where did you get "adds"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128178</id>
	<title>Customer Loyalty?</title>
	<author>AlpineR</author>
	<datestamp>1258469280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A couple years ago I went to a local movie theater and the box office line was too long so I chose to buy tickets from the computer kiosk. After choosing the showtime and sliding my credit card, a screen popped up saying:</p><p> <b>Customer Loyalty?<br>YES | NO</b> </p><p>Uh, no? I thought it was asking me if I was enrolled in some discount program I had never heard about. I answered honestly (or figured that if I lied then it'd ask for an ID number I didn't have). But I could see how Web sites might ask a similar question and fool customers into buying something when they had a reasonable expectation of getting something free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple years ago I went to a local movie theater and the box office line was too long so I chose to buy tickets from the computer kiosk .
After choosing the showtime and sliding my credit card , a screen popped up saying : Customer Loyalty ? YES | NO Uh , no ?
I thought it was asking me if I was enrolled in some discount program I had never heard about .
I answered honestly ( or figured that if I lied then it 'd ask for an ID number I did n't have ) .
But I could see how Web sites might ask a similar question and fool customers into buying something when they had a reasonable expectation of getting something free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple years ago I went to a local movie theater and the box office line was too long so I chose to buy tickets from the computer kiosk.
After choosing the showtime and sliding my credit card, a screen popped up saying: Customer Loyalty?YES | NO Uh, no?
I thought it was asking me if I was enrolled in some discount program I had never heard about.
I answered honestly (or figured that if I lied then it'd ask for an ID number I didn't have).
But I could see how Web sites might ask a similar question and fool customers into buying something when they had a reasonable expectation of getting something free.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129886</id>
	<title>Re:Where exactly do we stop at this?</title>
	<author>bzipitidoo</author>
	<datestamp>1258477560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What exactly are you calling "marketing"?  What I'm reading about here has another name:  fraud.  And that print you say isn't fine?  Yes, it is.  It's pretty easy to see that the intent is to confuse and trick people into saying yes to something rather different than what they thought they were agreeing to.  The agreements could have been much simpler and shorter, but were purposely drawn out in order to generate more opportunity for the seller to slip things in.  And arguably the intent of the entire program of a typical credit card affiliate is a pretext to stick on a monthly charge, no other reason.  They never intended to provide a service of real value to their victims.  A strong clue of that is they aren't eating their own dog food.  A good example of such a "service" are those fraud protection services that supposedly detect and protect from misuse of your credit card, something that banks are required by law to do anyway, and that wouldn't be such a problem if banks had set up the entire system more securely.

</p><p>As for the laissez-faire, let the buyer beware tone of your comment, legitimate merchants have every interest in stopping this fraud.  In order to operate, the market must meet public expectations of honesty.  Business would not last long if consumers could not trust that they would not be robbed whenever they went shopping, and decided the only safe thing to do was not shop at all.  Markets must be policed.  If Enron and Worldcom have faded from memory, didn't last year's financial meltdown drive that point home recently enough for you?  Madoff should never have gotten away with his fraud for as long as he did, and one of the reasons he did was the lack of policing.  No doubt we'll have to relearn those lessons in future decades.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What exactly are you calling " marketing " ?
What I 'm reading about here has another name : fraud .
And that print you say is n't fine ?
Yes , it is .
It 's pretty easy to see that the intent is to confuse and trick people into saying yes to something rather different than what they thought they were agreeing to .
The agreements could have been much simpler and shorter , but were purposely drawn out in order to generate more opportunity for the seller to slip things in .
And arguably the intent of the entire program of a typical credit card affiliate is a pretext to stick on a monthly charge , no other reason .
They never intended to provide a service of real value to their victims .
A strong clue of that is they are n't eating their own dog food .
A good example of such a " service " are those fraud protection services that supposedly detect and protect from misuse of your credit card , something that banks are required by law to do anyway , and that would n't be such a problem if banks had set up the entire system more securely .
As for the laissez-faire , let the buyer beware tone of your comment , legitimate merchants have every interest in stopping this fraud .
In order to operate , the market must meet public expectations of honesty .
Business would not last long if consumers could not trust that they would not be robbed whenever they went shopping , and decided the only safe thing to do was not shop at all .
Markets must be policed .
If Enron and Worldcom have faded from memory , did n't last year 's financial meltdown drive that point home recently enough for you ?
Madoff should never have gotten away with his fraud for as long as he did , and one of the reasons he did was the lack of policing .
No doubt we 'll have to relearn those lessons in future decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What exactly are you calling "marketing"?
What I'm reading about here has another name:  fraud.
And that print you say isn't fine?
Yes, it is.
It's pretty easy to see that the intent is to confuse and trick people into saying yes to something rather different than what they thought they were agreeing to.
The agreements could have been much simpler and shorter, but were purposely drawn out in order to generate more opportunity for the seller to slip things in.
And arguably the intent of the entire program of a typical credit card affiliate is a pretext to stick on a monthly charge, no other reason.
They never intended to provide a service of real value to their victims.
A strong clue of that is they aren't eating their own dog food.
A good example of such a "service" are those fraud protection services that supposedly detect and protect from misuse of your credit card, something that banks are required by law to do anyway, and that wouldn't be such a problem if banks had set up the entire system more securely.
As for the laissez-faire, let the buyer beware tone of your comment, legitimate merchants have every interest in stopping this fraud.
In order to operate, the market must meet public expectations of honesty.
Business would not last long if consumers could not trust that they would not be robbed whenever they went shopping, and decided the only safe thing to do was not shop at all.
Markets must be policed.
If Enron and Worldcom have faded from memory, didn't last year's financial meltdown drive that point home recently enough for you?
Madoff should never have gotten away with his fraud for as long as he did, and one of the reasons he did was the lack of policing.
No doubt we'll have to relearn those lessons in future decades.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30257726</id>
	<title>Re:CNET can't spell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259414520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well... my friend recently pointed out that I'd been misspelling "ridiculous" pretty much forever... I really thought it was "rediculous".   Still embarrassed about that, actually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well... my friend recently pointed out that I 'd been misspelling " ridiculous " pretty much forever... I really thought it was " rediculous " .
Still embarrassed about that , actually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well... my friend recently pointed out that I'd been misspelling "ridiculous" pretty much forever... I really thought it was "rediculous".
Still embarrassed about that, actually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30131976</id>
	<title>Re:Where exactly do we stop at this?</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1258486080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's amazing how stupid some people are on the internet. It is almost as if all literary skills go out the window and the don't freaking READ WHAT THE SCREEN SAYS!<br> <br> A while ago an extended relative asked what I wanted for Christmas (we do a rotation where everyone gets a couple random names and they buy for those names only rather than something for every single person, that way everyone gets some stuff but you dont have to spend a lot on people you don't even know/care about). Anyway, rather than listing a bunch of stuff, I told them just to look me up on Amazon where I have a couple public wishlists running. Tell them to just search for me on the Amazon wishlists, no problem right? Ive tested it and my name brings it straight to me. I was dead wrong, they just tried to use the product search and didn't find me (my biography isnt listed yet I guess, go figure) even though I told them explicitly to go to with WISHLIST page which is linked right at the top of the screen. I cried a little for humanity. <br> <br>Worst part is, I'm related to these people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's amazing how stupid some people are on the internet .
It is almost as if all literary skills go out the window and the do n't freaking READ WHAT THE SCREEN SAYS !
A while ago an extended relative asked what I wanted for Christmas ( we do a rotation where everyone gets a couple random names and they buy for those names only rather than something for every single person , that way everyone gets some stuff but you dont have to spend a lot on people you do n't even know/care about ) .
Anyway , rather than listing a bunch of stuff , I told them just to look me up on Amazon where I have a couple public wishlists running .
Tell them to just search for me on the Amazon wishlists , no problem right ?
Ive tested it and my name brings it straight to me .
I was dead wrong , they just tried to use the product search and did n't find me ( my biography isnt listed yet I guess , go figure ) even though I told them explicitly to go to with WISHLIST page which is linked right at the top of the screen .
I cried a little for humanity .
Worst part is , I 'm related to these people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's amazing how stupid some people are on the internet.
It is almost as if all literary skills go out the window and the don't freaking READ WHAT THE SCREEN SAYS!
A while ago an extended relative asked what I wanted for Christmas (we do a rotation where everyone gets a couple random names and they buy for those names only rather than something for every single person, that way everyone gets some stuff but you dont have to spend a lot on people you don't even know/care about).
Anyway, rather than listing a bunch of stuff, I told them just to look me up on Amazon where I have a couple public wishlists running.
Tell them to just search for me on the Amazon wishlists, no problem right?
Ive tested it and my name brings it straight to me.
I was dead wrong, they just tried to use the product search and didn't find me (my biography isnt listed yet I guess, go figure) even though I told them explicitly to go to with WISHLIST page which is linked right at the top of the screen.
I cried a little for humanity.
Worst part is, I'm related to these people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128158</id>
	<title>I need to RTFA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258469160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In August, as the government's investigation rolled on, Webloyalty announced that it would alter <b>it's</b> ads to require that consumers 'enter the last four digits of their credit or debit card to confirm' they wish to pay the membership fees.</p></div></blockquote><p>Did someone "correct" the quote in the summary, or is CNN ignorant of grammar? "It's" is a contraction of "it is". One can forgive unschooled teenagers or non-native speakers who make these mistakes, but how can I trust someone who has presumably gone to journalism school that doesn't know basic grammar? If he slept in English class how do I know he knows how to do journalism?</p><p>Contraction: He's, She's, it's<br>Posessive: His, hers, its.</p><p>Excuse me while I RTFA. And then google for a more competently written FA.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In August , as the government 's investigation rolled on , Webloyalty announced that it would alter it 's ads to require that consumers 'enter the last four digits of their credit or debit card to confirm ' they wish to pay the membership fees.Did someone " correct " the quote in the summary , or is CNN ignorant of grammar ?
" It 's " is a contraction of " it is " .
One can forgive unschooled teenagers or non-native speakers who make these mistakes , but how can I trust someone who has presumably gone to journalism school that does n't know basic grammar ?
If he slept in English class how do I know he knows how to do journalism ? Contraction : He 's , She 's , it'sPosessive : His , hers , its.Excuse me while I RTFA .
And then google for a more competently written FA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In August, as the government's investigation rolled on, Webloyalty announced that it would alter it's ads to require that consumers 'enter the last four digits of their credit or debit card to confirm' they wish to pay the membership fees.Did someone "correct" the quote in the summary, or is CNN ignorant of grammar?
"It's" is a contraction of "it is".
One can forgive unschooled teenagers or non-native speakers who make these mistakes, but how can I trust someone who has presumably gone to journalism school that doesn't know basic grammar?
If he slept in English class how do I know he knows how to do journalism?Contraction: He's, She's, it'sPosessive: His, hers, its.Excuse me while I RTFA.
And then google for a more competently written FA.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128970</id>
	<title>Best quality, Best reputation , Best services,look</title>
	<author>coolforsale136</author>
	<datestamp>1258473720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.coolforsale.com/" title="coolforsale.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.coolforsale.com/</a> [coolforsale.com]   Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Our commitment, customer is God.Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift.Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.coolforsale.com/ [ coolforsale.com ] Best quality , Best reputation , Best services Our commitment , customer is God.Quality is our Dignity ; Service is our Lift.Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but do n't miss it.Select your favorite clothing !
Welcome to come next time !
ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket , Air jordan ( 1-24 ) shoes $ 33 Nike shox ( R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3 ) $ 35 Handbags ( Coach lv fendi d&amp;g ) $ 35 Tshirts ( Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste ) $ 16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com]   Best quality, Best reputation , Best services Our commitment, customer is God.Quality is our Dignity; Service is our Lift.Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products .
Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing!
Welcome to come next time !
ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&amp;g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128960</id>
	<title>american business sense. 'hands off business'</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1258473660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why ? becauuuuuseee, you will cost americans jobs !!!</p><p>this is what happens instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why ?
becauuuuuseee , you will cost americans jobs ! !
! this is what happens instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why ?
becauuuuuseee, you will cost americans jobs !!
!this is what happens instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128618</id>
	<title>Use a prepaid card</title>
	<author>javakcl</author>
	<datestamp>1258472100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Use a prepaid card for as close to the charge amount as possible.  That way once the money runs out, you don't have to worry about the company continuing to charge you (as most do unless you explicitly cancel).  And, it doesn't matter if they forward the card info on.  When the money's gone, it's gone.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Use a prepaid card for as close to the charge amount as possible .
That way once the money runs out , you do n't have to worry about the company continuing to charge you ( as most do unless you explicitly cancel ) .
And , it does n't matter if they forward the card info on .
When the money 's gone , it 's gone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use a prepaid card for as close to the charge amount as possible.
That way once the money runs out, you don't have to worry about the company continuing to charge you (as most do unless you explicitly cancel).
And, it doesn't matter if they forward the card info on.
When the money's gone, it's gone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30144096</id>
	<title>Re:CNET can't spell</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1257093120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Immortals excluded, of course. You are perfection, my lords.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Immortals excluded , of course .
You are perfection , my lords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Immortals excluded, of course.
You are perfection, my lords.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30130716</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30130282</id>
	<title>Re:It's a mystery</title>
	<author>pyster</author>
	<datestamp>1258479360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cheap tickets passed my info along to webloyalty. I was billed, but was able to get the charges reversed by webloyalty with no issues. Classmates.com has also been known to do crap like this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheap tickets passed my info along to webloyalty .
I was billed , but was able to get the charges reversed by webloyalty with no issues .
Classmates.com has also been known to do crap like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheap tickets passed my info along to webloyalty.
I was billed, but was able to get the charges reversed by webloyalty with no issues.
Classmates.com has also been known to do crap like this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30127960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30130710</id>
	<title>Re:It's a mystery</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1258481340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really. A great example is when you get tickets via Fandango: at the end of the sale, you get a "save X on your purchase! click here for details!" If you do, you get taken to the web site where you have to sign up.  When I looked it was pretty clear that I was signing up for a service that I would need to pay for. I didn't want it, so I didn't find out if there was additional work needed to re-enter credit card, etc... probably not, but that really doesn't matter. There's not really any question that you're signing up for a separate service and that it's not free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
A great example is when you get tickets via Fandango : at the end of the sale , you get a " save X on your purchase !
click here for details !
" If you do , you get taken to the web site where you have to sign up .
When I looked it was pretty clear that I was signing up for a service that I would need to pay for .
I did n't want it , so I did n't find out if there was additional work needed to re-enter credit card , etc... probably not , but that really does n't matter .
There 's not really any question that you 're signing up for a separate service and that it 's not free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
A great example is when you get tickets via Fandango: at the end of the sale, you get a "save X on your purchase!
click here for details!
" If you do, you get taken to the web site where you have to sign up.
When I looked it was pretty clear that I was signing up for a service that I would need to pay for.
I didn't want it, so I didn't find out if there was additional work needed to re-enter credit card, etc... probably not, but that really doesn't matter.
There's not really any question that you're signing up for a separate service and that it's not free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30130046</id>
	<title>Re:Could be fixed with a simple law.</title>
	<author>sukotto</author>
	<datestamp>1258478280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You assume that the legislature is willing and capable of passing simple laws.

I think the evidence is against you there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You assume that the legislature is willing and capable of passing simple laws .
I think the evidence is against you there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You assume that the legislature is willing and capable of passing simple laws.
I think the evidence is against you there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129956</id>
	<title>Re:Where exactly do we stop at this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258477980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The business models of these companies are 100\% based on deception, that can and should be regulated.  As others have posted, the "fine print / banner" that you're talking about wasn't present AT ALL when these scams started showing up.  They do the absolute minimum amount of notification that is required by law.  When the hammer drops as people complain they change a TINY LITTLE BIT and claim they've changed their ways.</p><p>When the bulk of your customer base has to be duped into paying for your service, your business is a fraud and should be shut down.</p><p>When your entire business model is based on getting anywhere from $20 - $100 from people on a few monthly cycles because they haven't realized your scam yet and you make it nearly impossible to cancel, your business is a fraud and should be shut down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The business models of these companies are 100 \ % based on deception , that can and should be regulated .
As others have posted , the " fine print / banner " that you 're talking about was n't present AT ALL when these scams started showing up .
They do the absolute minimum amount of notification that is required by law .
When the hammer drops as people complain they change a TINY LITTLE BIT and claim they 've changed their ways.When the bulk of your customer base has to be duped into paying for your service , your business is a fraud and should be shut down.When your entire business model is based on getting anywhere from $ 20 - $ 100 from people on a few monthly cycles because they have n't realized your scam yet and you make it nearly impossible to cancel , your business is a fraud and should be shut down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The business models of these companies are 100\% based on deception, that can and should be regulated.
As others have posted, the "fine print / banner" that you're talking about wasn't present AT ALL when these scams started showing up.
They do the absolute minimum amount of notification that is required by law.
When the hammer drops as people complain they change a TINY LITTLE BIT and claim they've changed their ways.When the bulk of your customer base has to be duped into paying for your service, your business is a fraud and should be shut down.When your entire business model is based on getting anywhere from $20 - $100 from people on a few monthly cycles because they haven't realized your scam yet and you make it nearly impossible to cancel, your business is a fraud and should be shut down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30134132</id>
	<title>It happened to me once..</title>
	<author>tirk</author>
	<datestamp>1258450080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had this happen once from a movie ticket purchase on Fandango.  Bought some movie tickets, then a week later got an $80 charge from some place I had never heard of.  I made a very loud argument to Fandango about enabling my credit card number to be fraudulently used, etc, etc.  Within 2 two days I had all my money returned and some extra for the trouble, several free movie tickets, and a promise from Fandango that they would change the way companies advertise when they are sharing financial information, and indeed they did.  People just need to just stay on top of their accounts, understand their rights and loudly speak up your intention of fully enforcing your rights and usually that's all it takes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had this happen once from a movie ticket purchase on Fandango .
Bought some movie tickets , then a week later got an $ 80 charge from some place I had never heard of .
I made a very loud argument to Fandango about enabling my credit card number to be fraudulently used , etc , etc .
Within 2 two days I had all my money returned and some extra for the trouble , several free movie tickets , and a promise from Fandango that they would change the way companies advertise when they are sharing financial information , and indeed they did .
People just need to just stay on top of their accounts , understand their rights and loudly speak up your intention of fully enforcing your rights and usually that 's all it takes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had this happen once from a movie ticket purchase on Fandango.
Bought some movie tickets, then a week later got an $80 charge from some place I had never heard of.
I made a very loud argument to Fandango about enabling my credit card number to be fraudulently used, etc, etc.
Within 2 two days I had all my money returned and some extra for the trouble, several free movie tickets, and a promise from Fandango that they would change the way companies advertise when they are sharing financial information, and indeed they did.
People just need to just stay on top of their accounts, understand their rights and loudly speak up your intention of fully enforcing your rights and usually that's all it takes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0051239_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30132052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0051239_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0051239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0051239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30132842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0051239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0051239_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0051239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30257726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0051239_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30130046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0051239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30144096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30130716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0051239_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30130710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30127960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0051239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30135432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0051239_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0051239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30136188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0051239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0051239_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30135884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0051239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30130282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30127960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0051239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0051239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_17_0051239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30131976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0051239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30127960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30130710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30130282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0051239.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30135884
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0051239.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0051239.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0051239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0051239.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30130046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30135432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0051239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129956
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30132052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30131976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30132842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0051239.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30129706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0051239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0051239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0051239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30127956
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0051239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128618
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_17_0051239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128850
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30257726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30136188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30130716
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30144096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_17_0051239.30128242
</commentlist>
</conversation>
