<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_02_2316240</id>
	<title>EFF Wants To Know If the Feds Are Cyberstalking</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1259755380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>rossendryv writes <i>"The Electronic Frontier Foundation and UC Berkeley's Samuelson Center filed suit in California's Northern District, asking the court to force a number of government agencies to hand over any documents they have concerning the <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/eff-sues-feds-tell-us-how-you-use-facebook-for-cyberstalking.ars">use of social networking sites as part of investigative procedures</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>rossendryv writes " The Electronic Frontier Foundation and UC Berkeley 's Samuelson Center filed suit in California 's Northern District , asking the court to force a number of government agencies to hand over any documents they have concerning the use of social networking sites as part of investigative procedures .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rossendryv writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation and UC Berkeley's Samuelson Center filed suit in California's Northern District, asking the court to force a number of government agencies to hand over any documents they have concerning the use of social networking sites as part of investigative procedures.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305932</id>
	<title>prove it!</title>
	<author>anarking</author>
	<datestamp>1259588640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there was a story recently of police busting someone for underage drinking based on facebook pictures. the problem with arresting someone based not on catching them doing an illegal act, but by heresay or pictures... is that how can it be proven?!  "that was apple juice" "i was being facetious" shouldn't those be the only needs of defense against such allegations, true or not? this is the inherant flaw i see in this policing method.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there was a story recently of police busting someone for underage drinking based on facebook pictures .
the problem with arresting someone based not on catching them doing an illegal act , but by heresay or pictures... is that how can it be proven ? !
" that was apple juice " " i was being facetious " should n't those be the only needs of defense against such allegations , true or not ?
this is the inherant flaw i see in this policing method .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there was a story recently of police busting someone for underage drinking based on facebook pictures.
the problem with arresting someone based not on catching them doing an illegal act, but by heresay or pictures... is that how can it be proven?!
"that was apple juice" "i was being facetious" shouldn't those be the only needs of defense against such allegations, true or not?
this is the inherant flaw i see in this policing method.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305790</id>
	<title>More about data retention and usage policies...</title>
	<author>Ransak</author>
	<datestamp>1259587680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary is misleading. The suit is more about what the Feds are doing with that data and the policies surrounding it, not that the Feds are using social networking sites for investigations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary is misleading .
The suit is more about what the Feds are doing with that data and the policies surrounding it , not that the Feds are using social networking sites for investigations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary is misleading.
The suit is more about what the Feds are doing with that data and the policies surrounding it, not that the Feds are using social networking sites for investigations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30308146</id>
	<title>Re:Most people aren't interesting enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259871360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Chances are, no one in government cares about you, or your drunken antics posted on facespace. If they did, well, you put it out in public, so quit complaining when they read it.</i></p><p>Hard to say.  Maybe you've got a friend, one of whose friends had connections (e.g. worked closely) with a terrorist.  You might not know that.  I do know that, which is why I'm posting as A.C.</p><p>Of course, half the stuff on my facebook page is bogus, anyhow.  The people who have reason to know, know which half, mostly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chances are , no one in government cares about you , or your drunken antics posted on facespace .
If they did , well , you put it out in public , so quit complaining when they read it.Hard to say .
Maybe you 've got a friend , one of whose friends had connections ( e.g .
worked closely ) with a terrorist .
You might not know that .
I do know that , which is why I 'm posting as A.C.Of course , half the stuff on my facebook page is bogus , anyhow .
The people who have reason to know , know which half , mostly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chances are, no one in government cares about you, or your drunken antics posted on facespace.
If they did, well, you put it out in public, so quit complaining when they read it.Hard to say.
Maybe you've got a friend, one of whose friends had connections (e.g.
worked closely) with a terrorist.
You might not know that.
I do know that, which is why I'm posting as A.C.Of course, half the stuff on my facebook page is bogus, anyhow.
The people who have reason to know, know which half, mostly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30309144</id>
	<title>Re:Who Doesn't Believe the Feds are Watching?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1259845920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So instead of not using Facebook because you prefer some different degree of privacy, your claim is that you do not use Facebook because you feel like you are living in a situation similar to post war East Germany?</p><p>And you think the people who get hassled by your government drones 'deserve it'?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So instead of not using Facebook because you prefer some different degree of privacy , your claim is that you do not use Facebook because you feel like you are living in a situation similar to post war East Germany ? And you think the people who get hassled by your government drones 'deserve it ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So instead of not using Facebook because you prefer some different degree of privacy, your claim is that you do not use Facebook because you feel like you are living in a situation similar to post war East Germany?And you think the people who get hassled by your government drones 'deserve it'?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30310660</id>
	<title>Worse</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259858040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would be worse is if they could some how associate your 4chan posts with you, despite their being artistic works of fiction and falsehood.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would be worse is if they could some how associate your 4chan posts with you , despite their being artistic works of fiction and falsehood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would be worse is if they could some how associate your 4chan posts with you, despite their being artistic works of fiction and falsehood.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306878</id>
	<title>Re:Who Doesn't Believe the Feds are Watching?</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1259596140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this any different than the police patrolling your neighborhood, and looking for a wanted suspect, and keeping a record on his family, friends, and other activities related to the person they are trying to catch?  Not really.</p><p>The line would likely be crossed if they are just doing drag nets about peoples online to find out if they are doing anything illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this any different than the police patrolling your neighborhood , and looking for a wanted suspect , and keeping a record on his family , friends , and other activities related to the person they are trying to catch ?
Not really.The line would likely be crossed if they are just doing drag nets about peoples online to find out if they are doing anything illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this any different than the police patrolling your neighborhood, and looking for a wanted suspect, and keeping a record on his family, friends, and other activities related to the person they are trying to catch?
Not really.The line would likely be crossed if they are just doing drag nets about peoples online to find out if they are doing anything illegal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30307192</id>
	<title>Re:Who Doesn't Believe the Feds are Watching?</title>
	<author>Taur0</author>
	<datestamp>1259599020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps now they will receive a first hand lesson in why some of us consciously refuse to participate in social networking sites.</p></div><p>As opposed to refusing while being unconscious?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps now they will receive a first hand lesson in why some of us consciously refuse to participate in social networking sites.As opposed to refusing while being unconscious ?
: P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps now they will receive a first hand lesson in why some of us consciously refuse to participate in social networking sites.As opposed to refusing while being unconscious?
:P
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306072</id>
	<title>Re:Who Doesn't Believe the Feds are Watching?</title>
	<author>Jeian</author>
	<datestamp>1259589360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have your privacy settings set correctly, and the site in question has an adequate privacy policy, they're not going to see anything (like the fact that you even are a member of the site) anyway without a court order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have your privacy settings set correctly , and the site in question has an adequate privacy policy , they 're not going to see anything ( like the fact that you even are a member of the site ) anyway without a court order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have your privacy settings set correctly, and the site in question has an adequate privacy policy, they're not going to see anything (like the fact that you even are a member of the site) anyway without a court order.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305640</id>
	<title>Mafia wars</title>
	<author>tnk1</author>
	<datestamp>1259586900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The US Attorney for the Southern District of New York has announced a RICO case has been filed against all players of the game Mafia Wars.  It is clear that these are hardened criminals who not only kill without remorse, but share their results on social networking sites.  The US Attorney's Office thanks the social networking site Facebook for their cooperation in bringing these mobsters to justice."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The US Attorney for the Southern District of New York has announced a RICO case has been filed against all players of the game Mafia Wars .
It is clear that these are hardened criminals who not only kill without remorse , but share their results on social networking sites .
The US Attorney 's Office thanks the social networking site Facebook for their cooperation in bringing these mobsters to justice .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The US Attorney for the Southern District of New York has announced a RICO case has been filed against all players of the game Mafia Wars.
It is clear that these are hardened criminals who not only kill without remorse, but share their results on social networking sites.
The US Attorney's Office thanks the social networking site Facebook for their cooperation in bringing these mobsters to justice.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306526</id>
	<title>Re:Why wouldn't they?</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1259593020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, there is still a problem. I can't speak for any of the other social networking sites, but Facebook in particular puts fairly strong emphasis on the concept of publishing information publicly (viewable by anyone) versus publishing information privately (viewable only by "friends", ostensibly). 90\% of their users don't grok the concept that putting <i>anything</i> online at all by definition means that the information they post is now beyond their control. Sure, their terms of service say that they can do this but the public has been trained by corporations to not take such contracts seriously, let alone read them.</p><p>Sites like Facebook should not be allowed to use the word "private," because their definition of the word actually means, "viewable by your friends, every Facebook employee, law enforcement and investigative agencies, and other undisclosed entities that we sell, lease, or give your information to."</p><p>I'm not saying Facebook is doing anything illegal or underhanded, nor am I saying that users shouldn't be bound to the contracts that they agree to no matter how small the print. Just that Facebook and most other online services are seriously misrepresenting their use of the word "private."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there is still a problem .
I ca n't speak for any of the other social networking sites , but Facebook in particular puts fairly strong emphasis on the concept of publishing information publicly ( viewable by anyone ) versus publishing information privately ( viewable only by " friends " , ostensibly ) .
90 \ % of their users do n't grok the concept that putting anything online at all by definition means that the information they post is now beyond their control .
Sure , their terms of service say that they can do this but the public has been trained by corporations to not take such contracts seriously , let alone read them.Sites like Facebook should not be allowed to use the word " private , " because their definition of the word actually means , " viewable by your friends , every Facebook employee , law enforcement and investigative agencies , and other undisclosed entities that we sell , lease , or give your information to .
" I 'm not saying Facebook is doing anything illegal or underhanded , nor am I saying that users should n't be bound to the contracts that they agree to no matter how small the print .
Just that Facebook and most other online services are seriously misrepresenting their use of the word " private .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there is still a problem.
I can't speak for any of the other social networking sites, but Facebook in particular puts fairly strong emphasis on the concept of publishing information publicly (viewable by anyone) versus publishing information privately (viewable only by "friends", ostensibly).
90\% of their users don't grok the concept that putting anything online at all by definition means that the information they post is now beyond their control.
Sure, their terms of service say that they can do this but the public has been trained by corporations to not take such contracts seriously, let alone read them.Sites like Facebook should not be allowed to use the word "private," because their definition of the word actually means, "viewable by your friends, every Facebook employee, law enforcement and investigative agencies, and other undisclosed entities that we sell, lease, or give your information to.
"I'm not saying Facebook is doing anything illegal or underhanded, nor am I saying that users shouldn't be bound to the contracts that they agree to no matter how small the print.
Just that Facebook and most other online services are seriously misrepresenting their use of the word "private.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30321966</id>
	<title>Re:Why wouldn't they?</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1259920920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It can pollute the society where everybody will be treated as <i>potential</i> criminal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It can pollute the society where everybody will be treated as potential criminal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can pollute the society where everybody will be treated as potential criminal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306516</id>
	<title>Re:Why wouldn't they?</title>
	<author>Dumnezeu</author>
	<datestamp>1259592900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit! They're just using this as an excuse to have a permanent Internet connection so they can play WoW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit !
They 're just using this as an excuse to have a permanent Internet connection so they can play WoW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit!
They're just using this as an excuse to have a permanent Internet connection so they can play WoW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306624</id>
	<title>Re:Most people aren't interesting enough</title>
	<author>nozendo</author>
	<datestamp>1259593800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look further though. You're essentially a part of a neural style network here. You might be dull as a box of hankies but a professional associate, a relative, even at N degrees of separation - you're providing additional information against that person. It's not \_you\_ or even your N+1 or N+2 relations, its your overall participation in the mesh of interactions.</p><p>In a very simple case you can be a part of a border analysis against another person. Your professional activities, your actions, combined with a group of people that encapsulate (via common connections) another individual or a subset of individuals is extremely valuable for analysis.</p><p>This boggles me that we have a group of what I can assume are intelligent professionals here that can't see past the most elementary, low level application of information research / analysis. I've done incredibly effective analysis against individuals with a handful of public domain information, none of which was \_direct\_ content of theirs, let alone what I could do with access to the entire facebook back end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look further though .
You 're essentially a part of a neural style network here .
You might be dull as a box of hankies but a professional associate , a relative , even at N degrees of separation - you 're providing additional information against that person .
It 's not \ _you \ _ or even your N + 1 or N + 2 relations , its your overall participation in the mesh of interactions.In a very simple case you can be a part of a border analysis against another person .
Your professional activities , your actions , combined with a group of people that encapsulate ( via common connections ) another individual or a subset of individuals is extremely valuable for analysis.This boggles me that we have a group of what I can assume are intelligent professionals here that ca n't see past the most elementary , low level application of information research / analysis .
I 've done incredibly effective analysis against individuals with a handful of public domain information , none of which was \ _direct \ _ content of theirs , let alone what I could do with access to the entire facebook back end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look further though.
You're essentially a part of a neural style network here.
You might be dull as a box of hankies but a professional associate, a relative, even at N degrees of separation - you're providing additional information against that person.
It's not \_you\_ or even your N+1 or N+2 relations, its your overall participation in the mesh of interactions.In a very simple case you can be a part of a border analysis against another person.
Your professional activities, your actions, combined with a group of people that encapsulate (via common connections) another individual or a subset of individuals is extremely valuable for analysis.This boggles me that we have a group of what I can assume are intelligent professionals here that can't see past the most elementary, low level application of information research / analysis.
I've done incredibly effective analysis against individuals with a handful of public domain information, none of which was \_direct\_ content of theirs, let alone what I could do with access to the entire facebook back end.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306568</id>
	<title>Why not?</title>
	<author>SilverHatHacker</author>
	<datestamp>1259593380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't everyone stalk other people on Facebook? Come on, let me see a show of hands...<br>
Come on, don't be shy...<br>
*crickets*</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't everyone stalk other people on Facebook ?
Come on , let me see a show of hands.. . Come on , do n't be shy.. . * crickets *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't everyone stalk other people on Facebook?
Come on, let me see a show of hands...
Come on, don't be shy...
*crickets*</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30312444</id>
	<title>Re:Why wouldn't they?</title>
	<author>Beardo the Bearded</author>
	<datestamp>1259863680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, no, it looks like they are using the public info to check up on people whom they are already investigating. If they're just fishing, then they simply have no decency.</p><p>If it's on your public profile, that's akin to leaving stuff on your front lawn. Anyone can drive up and take a picture. If you're loading weed onto a truck in broad daylight in a residential neighbourhood, don't be shocked if your neighbours call the police.</p><p>Likewise, if you've left a photo of yourself with, say, a flatbed of marijuana and a status of "BRB -- going to Canada for delivery" on your public profile, don't be surprised if you get pulled over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , no , it looks like they are using the public info to check up on people whom they are already investigating .
If they 're just fishing , then they simply have no decency.If it 's on your public profile , that 's akin to leaving stuff on your front lawn .
Anyone can drive up and take a picture .
If you 're loading weed onto a truck in broad daylight in a residential neighbourhood , do n't be shocked if your neighbours call the police.Likewise , if you 've left a photo of yourself with , say , a flatbed of marijuana and a status of " BRB -- going to Canada for delivery " on your public profile , do n't be surprised if you get pulled over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, no, it looks like they are using the public info to check up on people whom they are already investigating.
If they're just fishing, then they simply have no decency.If it's on your public profile, that's akin to leaving stuff on your front lawn.
Anyone can drive up and take a picture.
If you're loading weed onto a truck in broad daylight in a residential neighbourhood, don't be shocked if your neighbours call the police.Likewise, if you've left a photo of yourself with, say, a flatbed of marijuana and a status of "BRB -- going to Canada for delivery" on your public profile, don't be surprised if you get pulled over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30309758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305828</id>
	<title>Hand wringing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259587860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It isn't as though the Feds will do anything with <a href="http://www.nowpublic.com/world/malik-nadal-hasan-internet-postings-raise-suspicion-police-2510348.html" title="nowpublic.com" rel="nofollow">whatever they find</a> [nowpublic.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't as though the Feds will do anything with whatever they find [ nowpublic.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't as though the Feds will do anything with whatever they find [nowpublic.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306058</id>
	<title>Let's Go Fishing!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259589300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the key features of social networking is that you display certain types of data to the world or to user-defined groups.  You do this at your own risk and you are either expressly or implicitly consenting to the display of the data to your selected viewers.  The article was fairly vague on what exactly the EFF is after. Smells too much like a fishing expedition unless there is something they know or strongly suspect that we don't.</p><p>What would be more interesting is if either: (a) the feds were circumventing security controls and monitoring communication through social networks (especially without warrants), or (b) feds had standing "agreements" with the social networking companies which gives them access to data that would otherwise be private.</p><p>Other than that, I find the possibility that the feds are reading my anonymous<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. comments unremarkable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the key features of social networking is that you display certain types of data to the world or to user-defined groups .
You do this at your own risk and you are either expressly or implicitly consenting to the display of the data to your selected viewers .
The article was fairly vague on what exactly the EFF is after .
Smells too much like a fishing expedition unless there is something they know or strongly suspect that we do n't.What would be more interesting is if either : ( a ) the feds were circumventing security controls and monitoring communication through social networks ( especially without warrants ) , or ( b ) feds had standing " agreements " with the social networking companies which gives them access to data that would otherwise be private.Other than that , I find the possibility that the feds are reading my anonymous / .
comments unremarkable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the key features of social networking is that you display certain types of data to the world or to user-defined groups.
You do this at your own risk and you are either expressly or implicitly consenting to the display of the data to your selected viewers.
The article was fairly vague on what exactly the EFF is after.
Smells too much like a fishing expedition unless there is something they know or strongly suspect that we don't.What would be more interesting is if either: (a) the feds were circumventing security controls and monitoring communication through social networks (especially without warrants), or (b) feds had standing "agreements" with the social networking companies which gives them access to data that would otherwise be private.Other than that, I find the possibility that the feds are reading my anonymous /.
comments unremarkable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30321426</id>
	<title>Phone number</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1259868900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Never disclose your <i>phone number</i> on Facebook.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Never disclose your phone number on Facebook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Never disclose your phone number on Facebook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30307262</id>
	<title>Re:Mafia wars</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1259599620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Believe me, It'll go <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/02/john-gotti-jr-mistrial" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">nowhere</a> [guardian.co.uk]</p><p><i>Help us, IRS! You're our only hope</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Believe me , It 'll go nowhere [ guardian.co.uk ] Help us , IRS !
You 're our only hope</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Believe me, It'll go nowhere [guardian.co.uk]Help us, IRS!
You're our only hope</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30310116</id>
	<title>Re:Most people aren't interesting enough</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1259855520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Look further though. You're essentially a part of a neural style network here.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Not <a href="http://www.isolatr.com/" title="isolatr.com" rel="nofollow">my social networking site</a> [isolatr.com]. I'm a network of one!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look further though .
You 're essentially a part of a neural style network here .
Not my social networking site [ isolatr.com ] .
I 'm a network of one !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look further though.
You're essentially a part of a neural style network here.
Not my social networking site [isolatr.com].
I'm a network of one!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30309084</id>
	<title>Re:Who Doesn't Believe the Feds are Watching?</title>
	<author>CharlyFoxtrot</author>
	<datestamp>1259844720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's something vaguely satisfying in knowing the feds are forced to watch thousands of idiots' progress at Farmville. Job satisfaction must be at an all time low.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's something vaguely satisfying in knowing the feds are forced to watch thousands of idiots ' progress at Farmville .
Job satisfaction must be at an all time low .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's something vaguely satisfying in knowing the feds are forced to watch thousands of idiots' progress at Farmville.
Job satisfaction must be at an all time low.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30309346</id>
	<title>Investigative style</title>
	<author>realsilly</author>
	<datestamp>1259848920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Social Networking sites are the type of tool that the govt. agencies have wanted for years now.  It helps them with their investigations into cells of criminal activity.  Consider how say the mob works.  Vinny the Boss, hires Joe Schmo to do his job but uses cash at a drop zone.  Well Joe has to have had some way of knowing to take the job from Vinny.  So a Social networking site like application help piece Vinny and Joe to the same coffee shop that they frequent.  Now think of the limitless potential power of investigation that can be performed.  All legal, the info is public, so no warrants are necessary, the cells of criminals are oblivious as to how they are nabbed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Social Networking sites are the type of tool that the govt .
agencies have wanted for years now .
It helps them with their investigations into cells of criminal activity .
Consider how say the mob works .
Vinny the Boss , hires Joe Schmo to do his job but uses cash at a drop zone .
Well Joe has to have had some way of knowing to take the job from Vinny .
So a Social networking site like application help piece Vinny and Joe to the same coffee shop that they frequent .
Now think of the limitless potential power of investigation that can be performed .
All legal , the info is public , so no warrants are necessary , the cells of criminals are oblivious as to how they are nabbed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Social Networking sites are the type of tool that the govt.
agencies have wanted for years now.
It helps them with their investigations into cells of criminal activity.
Consider how say the mob works.
Vinny the Boss, hires Joe Schmo to do his job but uses cash at a drop zone.
Well Joe has to have had some way of knowing to take the job from Vinny.
So a Social networking site like application help piece Vinny and Joe to the same coffee shop that they frequent.
Now think of the limitless potential power of investigation that can be performed.
All legal, the info is public, so no warrants are necessary, the cells of criminals are oblivious as to how they are nabbed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305906</id>
	<title>Re:Why wouldn't they?</title>
	<author>Onthax</author>
	<datestamp>1259588460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>But dont i have a resonable expectation of privacy for my facebook

it is not publicly searchable, only certain people on my friends list (Access Control List) can see the information i share
this would make it more like an email communication medium, not a public information source?</htmltext>
<tokenext>But dont i have a resonable expectation of privacy for my facebook it is not publicly searchable , only certain people on my friends list ( Access Control List ) can see the information i share this would make it more like an email communication medium , not a public information source ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But dont i have a resonable expectation of privacy for my facebook

it is not publicly searchable, only certain people on my friends list (Access Control List) can see the information i share
this would make it more like an email communication medium, not a public information source?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306224</id>
	<title>They have to. Security Clearance.</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1259590440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you go for a security clearance, they search all you social networking pages and everyone who you are "friends" with. It's a real pain for them but they have to do it.<p>So, if you have a friend on Facebook who had to get security clearance, you were investigated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you go for a security clearance , they search all you social networking pages and everyone who you are " friends " with .
It 's a real pain for them but they have to do it.So , if you have a friend on Facebook who had to get security clearance , you were investigated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you go for a security clearance, they search all you social networking pages and everyone who you are "friends" with.
It's a real pain for them but they have to do it.So, if you have a friend on Facebook who had to get security clearance, you were investigated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305642</id>
	<title>Peekaboo!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259586900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=26362499269&amp;ref=search&amp;sid=695178310.1678982780..1#/group.php?v=wall&amp;ref=search&amp;gid=26362499269" title="facebook.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=26362499269&amp;ref=search&amp;sid=695178310.1678982780..1#/group.php?v=wall&amp;ref=search&amp;gid=26362499269</a> [facebook.com]

Osama Bin Laden:  World Champion of Hide and Seek since 2001!</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.facebook.com/group.php ? gid = 26362499269&amp;ref = search&amp;sid = 695178310.1678982780..1 # /group.php ? v = wall&amp;ref = search&amp;gid = 26362499269 [ facebook.com ] Osama Bin Laden : World Champion of Hide and Seek since 2001 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=26362499269&amp;ref=search&amp;sid=695178310.1678982780..1#/group.php?v=wall&amp;ref=search&amp;gid=26362499269 [facebook.com]

Osama Bin Laden:  World Champion of Hide and Seek since 2001!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30308712</id>
	<title>Re:Who Doesn't Believe the Feds are Watching?</title>
	<author>Snatch422</author>
	<datestamp>1259837940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The CIA has plenty of covert operatives working at Facebook.  They use it not just for stalking against targeted individuals, spies in training, and practice/research but also by having subtle features that can be used for subconscious suggestion.  Facebook is infiltrated by the feds and people are just naive (as is Google).  That does not stop me from having a Facebook account though - I simply use my account to play my own psy ops right back at them and expose all their idiotic and horrendous secrets.  You should join me in doing the same.  Most CIA covert operatives are criminals.

Most people are naive that the intelligence community is running the country with mind control techniques for the past 50-60 years...  Nobody can control the CIA anymore - the CIA is controlling the entire country.  Roughly 10\% of the country is CIA most peopel cannot comprehend that such a large conspiracy would be possible - they dont understand security clearances or the intelligence community either, simply hopeless.  See this blog: <a href="http://thespiritofhumanity.blogspot.com./" title="thespirito...ogspot.com" rel="nofollow">http://thespiritofhumanity.blogspot.com./</a> [thespirito...ogspot.com]  My father was a shadowy CIA guy who secretly allowed the CIA to perform psychological torture on me for spy training.  People are born spies as it runs in a family.  They own a lot of small businesses in the country and have operatives in all the big ones.  Could you imagine if people woke up?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The CIA has plenty of covert operatives working at Facebook .
They use it not just for stalking against targeted individuals , spies in training , and practice/research but also by having subtle features that can be used for subconscious suggestion .
Facebook is infiltrated by the feds and people are just naive ( as is Google ) .
That does not stop me from having a Facebook account though - I simply use my account to play my own psy ops right back at them and expose all their idiotic and horrendous secrets .
You should join me in doing the same .
Most CIA covert operatives are criminals .
Most people are naive that the intelligence community is running the country with mind control techniques for the past 50-60 years... Nobody can control the CIA anymore - the CIA is controlling the entire country .
Roughly 10 \ % of the country is CIA most peopel can not comprehend that such a large conspiracy would be possible - they dont understand security clearances or the intelligence community either , simply hopeless .
See this blog : http : //thespiritofhumanity.blogspot.com./ [ thespirito...ogspot.com ] My father was a shadowy CIA guy who secretly allowed the CIA to perform psychological torture on me for spy training .
People are born spies as it runs in a family .
They own a lot of small businesses in the country and have operatives in all the big ones .
Could you imagine if people woke up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CIA has plenty of covert operatives working at Facebook.
They use it not just for stalking against targeted individuals, spies in training, and practice/research but also by having subtle features that can be used for subconscious suggestion.
Facebook is infiltrated by the feds and people are just naive (as is Google).
That does not stop me from having a Facebook account though - I simply use my account to play my own psy ops right back at them and expose all their idiotic and horrendous secrets.
You should join me in doing the same.
Most CIA covert operatives are criminals.
Most people are naive that the intelligence community is running the country with mind control techniques for the past 50-60 years...  Nobody can control the CIA anymore - the CIA is controlling the entire country.
Roughly 10\% of the country is CIA most peopel cannot comprehend that such a large conspiracy would be possible - they dont understand security clearances or the intelligence community either, simply hopeless.
See this blog: http://thespiritofhumanity.blogspot.com./ [thespirito...ogspot.com]  My father was a shadowy CIA guy who secretly allowed the CIA to perform psychological torture on me for spy training.
People are born spies as it runs in a family.
They own a lot of small businesses in the country and have operatives in all the big ones.
Could you imagine if people woke up?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305914</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306706</id>
	<title>Re:Most people aren't interesting enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259594460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To try and demonstrate this:</p><p>Person X on facebook has a private profile enabled but have allowed for their friends to be visible.</p><p>Say 80\% of their friends have public profiles on facebook. You'd then go through the process of mapping percentages for:</p><p>- Their hometown<br>- employment<br>- common venues<br>- level of facebook activity<br>- interests, hobbies<br>- participation in local events, clubs, universities etc</p><p>Repeat for a couple of iterations down the friends of friends chain and guaranteed you could learn a massive amount about the individual regardless of profile status (eg, their employment, lifestyle, hobbies, timetable etc).</p><p>Scale this up to properly managed automated engines for the task and multiple data sources and there's not much you couldn't pinpoint about an individual, even if for example they didn't use facebook but had a majority of associated who did. Replace facebook with anything, perhaps linked in because of its more "professional" sales pitch. FB is just an easy example.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To try and demonstrate this : Person X on facebook has a private profile enabled but have allowed for their friends to be visible.Say 80 \ % of their friends have public profiles on facebook .
You 'd then go through the process of mapping percentages for : - Their hometown- employment- common venues- level of facebook activity- interests , hobbies- participation in local events , clubs , universities etcRepeat for a couple of iterations down the friends of friends chain and guaranteed you could learn a massive amount about the individual regardless of profile status ( eg , their employment , lifestyle , hobbies , timetable etc ) .Scale this up to properly managed automated engines for the task and multiple data sources and there 's not much you could n't pinpoint about an individual , even if for example they did n't use facebook but had a majority of associated who did .
Replace facebook with anything , perhaps linked in because of its more " professional " sales pitch .
FB is just an easy example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To try and demonstrate this:Person X on facebook has a private profile enabled but have allowed for their friends to be visible.Say 80\% of their friends have public profiles on facebook.
You'd then go through the process of mapping percentages for:- Their hometown- employment- common venues- level of facebook activity- interests, hobbies- participation in local events, clubs, universities etcRepeat for a couple of iterations down the friends of friends chain and guaranteed you could learn a massive amount about the individual regardless of profile status (eg, their employment, lifestyle, hobbies, timetable etc).Scale this up to properly managed automated engines for the task and multiple data sources and there's not much you couldn't pinpoint about an individual, even if for example they didn't use facebook but had a majority of associated who did.
Replace facebook with anything, perhaps linked in because of its more "professional" sales pitch.
FB is just an easy example.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30307900</id>
	<title>Get a grip</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1259608080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, the guy is holed up in a cave with a couple of goats in the middle of Nowhere, Pakistan (And still the US can't find him, but that's another lol). He has to send a runner with a cassette tape 500km to the Al Jazeera office every time he has a new fatwa to issue.</p><p>It's not like he's going to be updating his Facebook status very often.</p><p>Osama has updated his profile : Today I feel like crushing infidels.<br>Fahid commented on Osama's post : lol habibi.<br>Ahmed likes this.<br>Mohammad pokes Osama.<br>Osama has been busy in the kitchen and has cooked too many Kung Pao Chicken. Help him out on Cafe World.<br>Osama has been downgraded to level 1 in Habbo Hotel, because he keeps blowing up his buildings (sorry, it slipped out).</p><p>As for the rest of the world, the signal to noise ratio is just too great for the Feebs to glean anything useful. Christ, I only have family and a few close friends on my FB, but the amount of drivel they post is unreal.</p><p>I'm on the bus going to town.<br>I'm at town.<br>I saw blah blah in town.<br>Where ?<br>At the coffee shop.<br>I nearly said hello, but thought I'd tweet you instead.<br>and so on, and so on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , the guy is holed up in a cave with a couple of goats in the middle of Nowhere , Pakistan ( And still the US ca n't find him , but that 's another lol ) .
He has to send a runner with a cassette tape 500km to the Al Jazeera office every time he has a new fatwa to issue.It 's not like he 's going to be updating his Facebook status very often.Osama has updated his profile : Today I feel like crushing infidels.Fahid commented on Osama 's post : lol habibi.Ahmed likes this.Mohammad pokes Osama.Osama has been busy in the kitchen and has cooked too many Kung Pao Chicken .
Help him out on Cafe World.Osama has been downgraded to level 1 in Habbo Hotel , because he keeps blowing up his buildings ( sorry , it slipped out ) .As for the rest of the world , the signal to noise ratio is just too great for the Feebs to glean anything useful .
Christ , I only have family and a few close friends on my FB , but the amount of drivel they post is unreal.I 'm on the bus going to town.I 'm at town.I saw blah blah in town.Where ? At the coffee shop.I nearly said hello , but thought I 'd tweet you instead.and so on , and so on .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, the guy is holed up in a cave with a couple of goats in the middle of Nowhere, Pakistan (And still the US can't find him, but that's another lol).
He has to send a runner with a cassette tape 500km to the Al Jazeera office every time he has a new fatwa to issue.It's not like he's going to be updating his Facebook status very often.Osama has updated his profile : Today I feel like crushing infidels.Fahid commented on Osama's post : lol habibi.Ahmed likes this.Mohammad pokes Osama.Osama has been busy in the kitchen and has cooked too many Kung Pao Chicken.
Help him out on Cafe World.Osama has been downgraded to level 1 in Habbo Hotel, because he keeps blowing up his buildings (sorry, it slipped out).As for the rest of the world, the signal to noise ratio is just too great for the Feebs to glean anything useful.
Christ, I only have family and a few close friends on my FB, but the amount of drivel they post is unreal.I'm on the bus going to town.I'm at town.I saw blah blah in town.Where ?At the coffee shop.I nearly said hello, but thought I'd tweet you instead.and so on, and so on ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305826</id>
	<title>This isn't a problem</title>
	<author>rmushkatblat</author>
	<datestamp>1259587800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you read TFA, you'll notice that in general the EFF doesn't have a problem with these types of practices.
It's just FOI requests are getting stalled/ignored.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read TFA , you 'll notice that in general the EFF does n't have a problem with these types of practices .
It 's just FOI requests are getting stalled/ignored .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read TFA, you'll notice that in general the EFF doesn't have a problem with these types of practices.
It's just FOI requests are getting stalled/ignored.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305744</id>
	<title>Re:Why wouldn't they?</title>
	<author>zmaragdus</author>
	<datestamp>1259587500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many companies also perform such searches whilst screening potential employees. They often get junior (junior as in position, not necessarily age) employees to befriend said candidates in order to dig up any "dirt" they can on you. (Hence a warning to those of you looking for a job: beware what you post online.) The feds would be foolish not to do so as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many companies also perform such searches whilst screening potential employees .
They often get junior ( junior as in position , not necessarily age ) employees to befriend said candidates in order to dig up any " dirt " they can on you .
( Hence a warning to those of you looking for a job : beware what you post online .
) The feds would be foolish not to do so as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many companies also perform such searches whilst screening potential employees.
They often get junior (junior as in position, not necessarily age) employees to befriend said candidates in order to dig up any "dirt" they can on you.
(Hence a warning to those of you looking for a job: beware what you post online.
) The feds would be foolish not to do so as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305914</id>
	<title>Who Doesn't Believe the Feds are Watching?</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1259588580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are the Feds watching Facebook and other social networking sites? Did the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi" title="wikipedia.org">STASI</a> [wikipedia.org] keep tabs on East German citizens? I find it amusing to see people, especially those who are na&#239;ve about the way the world works, shocked that intelligence agencies might actually monitor information which they so graciously posted for all the world to see (gasp). Perhaps now they will receive a first hand lesson in why some of us consciously refuse to participate in social networking sites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are the Feds watching Facebook and other social networking sites ?
Did the STASI [ wikipedia.org ] keep tabs on East German citizens ?
I find it amusing to see people , especially those who are na   ve about the way the world works , shocked that intelligence agencies might actually monitor information which they so graciously posted for all the world to see ( gasp ) .
Perhaps now they will receive a first hand lesson in why some of us consciously refuse to participate in social networking sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are the Feds watching Facebook and other social networking sites?
Did the STASI [wikipedia.org] keep tabs on East German citizens?
I find it amusing to see people, especially those who are naïve about the way the world works, shocked that intelligence agencies might actually monitor information which they so graciously posted for all the world to see (gasp).
Perhaps now they will receive a first hand lesson in why some of us consciously refuse to participate in social networking sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30307030</id>
	<title>Re:prove it!</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1259597640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No flaw,  In the UK, do too much gang related 'stuff' on web 2.0 sites and you might get a wake up at 6 am.<br>
All part of community policing.   You front door will be removed and home walked over by many men and woman in full protective gear.<br>You will get a friendly chat about your lifestyle and they walk out.<br>"we know what your post, who your friends are and your address, stop now..."<br>
Bureaucratic warrants will be great for that kind of soft policing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No flaw , In the UK , do too much gang related 'stuff ' on web 2.0 sites and you might get a wake up at 6 am .
All part of community policing .
You front door will be removed and home walked over by many men and woman in full protective gear.You will get a friendly chat about your lifestyle and they walk out .
" we know what your post , who your friends are and your address , stop now... " Bureaucratic warrants will be great for that kind of soft policing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No flaw,  In the UK, do too much gang related 'stuff' on web 2.0 sites and you might get a wake up at 6 am.
All part of community policing.
You front door will be removed and home walked over by many men and woman in full protective gear.You will get a friendly chat about your lifestyle and they walk out.
"we know what your post, who your friends are and your address, stop now..."
Bureaucratic warrants will be great for that kind of soft policing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674</id>
	<title>Why wouldn't they?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259587140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why wouldn't the feds do this? It would be irresponsible of them to *NOT* look at social networking sites for illegal activities. I'm not saying that there's a treasure trove of information there, but come on, this isn't private data we're talking about here. If the FBI or CIA ir CSIS or NSA or ABC is looking for info on me, they should at the very least be putting "Beardo the Bearded" into Google and following the links.</p><p>If someone is putting things up in public for anyone to see then I can't see any problems with a government agency looking over these records. I'm all for privacy, but once you put it up in public, good luck, Mrs. Streisand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would n't the feds do this ?
It would be irresponsible of them to * NOT * look at social networking sites for illegal activities .
I 'm not saying that there 's a treasure trove of information there , but come on , this is n't private data we 're talking about here .
If the FBI or CIA ir CSIS or NSA or ABC is looking for info on me , they should at the very least be putting " Beardo the Bearded " into Google and following the links.If someone is putting things up in public for anyone to see then I ca n't see any problems with a government agency looking over these records .
I 'm all for privacy , but once you put it up in public , good luck , Mrs. Streisand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why wouldn't the feds do this?
It would be irresponsible of them to *NOT* look at social networking sites for illegal activities.
I'm not saying that there's a treasure trove of information there, but come on, this isn't private data we're talking about here.
If the FBI or CIA ir CSIS or NSA or ABC is looking for info on me, they should at the very least be putting "Beardo the Bearded" into Google and following the links.If someone is putting things up in public for anyone to see then I can't see any problems with a government agency looking over these records.
I'm all for privacy, but once you put it up in public, good luck, Mrs. Streisand.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30309564</id>
	<title>Re:Why wouldn't they?</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1259851740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tend to agree with you here, trying to imagine being a gov. operative, you use everything you can to catch the bad guy.<br>If we need to know who is a terrorist, and we know all the cell's current operatives have a facebook account and are all linked, they can send messages, images etc. quickly through facebook without detection.</p><p>This is like better then regular email, or even hotmail, as any friend can pop up and poke you or leave you a message to let them join as friend, and within that message could be the next attack vector. See, no friends yet totally communicated what I needed to central station.</p><p>I may have an active imagination but I do know that operatives (good or bad) are smarter then me,<br>and quicker, so if I can think of this, think what they come up with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to agree with you here , trying to imagine being a gov .
operative , you use everything you can to catch the bad guy.If we need to know who is a terrorist , and we know all the cell 's current operatives have a facebook account and are all linked , they can send messages , images etc .
quickly through facebook without detection.This is like better then regular email , or even hotmail , as any friend can pop up and poke you or leave you a message to let them join as friend , and within that message could be the next attack vector .
See , no friends yet totally communicated what I needed to central station.I may have an active imagination but I do know that operatives ( good or bad ) are smarter then me,and quicker , so if I can think of this , think what they come up with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to agree with you here, trying to imagine being a gov.
operative, you use everything you can to catch the bad guy.If we need to know who is a terrorist, and we know all the cell's current operatives have a facebook account and are all linked, they can send messages, images etc.
quickly through facebook without detection.This is like better then regular email, or even hotmail, as any friend can pop up and poke you or leave you a message to let them join as friend, and within that message could be the next attack vector.
See, no friends yet totally communicated what I needed to central station.I may have an active imagination but I do know that operatives (good or bad) are smarter then me,and quicker, so if I can think of this, think what they come up with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306948</id>
	<title>Re:Why wouldn't they?</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1259596620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/EU\_social\_network\_spy\_system\_brief\%2C\_INDECT\_Work\_Package\_4\%2C\_2009" title="wikileaks.org">http://wikileaks.org/wiki/EU\_social\_network\_spy\_system\_brief\%2C\_INDECT\_Work\_Package\_4\%2C\_2009</a> [wikileaks.org] <br>
They get you, the words/terms/jargon you use, your friends and friends of friends.<br>
Then they track you all and sort your interests.<br>
When you have something real to do, never do it online<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //wikileaks.org/wiki/EU \ _social \ _network \ _spy \ _system \ _brief \ % 2C \ _INDECT \ _Work \ _Package \ _4 \ % 2C \ _2009 [ wikileaks.org ] They get you , the words/terms/jargon you use , your friends and friends of friends .
Then they track you all and sort your interests .
When you have something real to do , never do it online ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://wikileaks.org/wiki/EU\_social\_network\_spy\_system\_brief\%2C\_INDECT\_Work\_Package\_4\%2C\_2009 [wikileaks.org] 
They get you, the words/terms/jargon you use, your friends and friends of friends.
Then they track you all and sort your interests.
When you have something real to do, never do it online ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30309758</id>
	<title>Re:Why wouldn't they?</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259853300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're FOR the police using fishing expeditions? That use to be considered very unamerican. Don't investigate me unless you have reason to believe that I've committed a crime!</p><p>If some slashdotter were to call the FBI because of my journals, telling them tales of drugs and prostitution, I hardly think that what may or may not be fiction (some have tried to guess, some have said they don't want to know) should lead to an <a href="http://www.sj-r.com/news/x441565200/Judge-declares-mistrial-in-case-against-Springfield-police" title="sj-r.com">investigation.</a> [sj-r.com]</p><p>Even photos or movies of what appears to be criminal activity. Ever see a Cheech and Chong movie? Think that was real dope they were smoking? Nope, they've stated that they tried using real pot on the very first day of shooting, but they got too stoned to actually make a movie. That's not real dope they're smoking (let alone dogshit or a cockroach).</p><p>Ever see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Departed" title="wikipedia.org">The Departed</a> [wikipedia.org]? You really think Martin Sheen got thrown out of a window? Or than any of those people were actually shot?</p><p>This is not only a waste of tax money, but an infringement of my rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're FOR the police using fishing expeditions ?
That use to be considered very unamerican .
Do n't investigate me unless you have reason to believe that I 've committed a crime ! If some slashdotter were to call the FBI because of my journals , telling them tales of drugs and prostitution , I hardly think that what may or may not be fiction ( some have tried to guess , some have said they do n't want to know ) should lead to an investigation .
[ sj-r.com ] Even photos or movies of what appears to be criminal activity .
Ever see a Cheech and Chong movie ?
Think that was real dope they were smoking ?
Nope , they 've stated that they tried using real pot on the very first day of shooting , but they got too stoned to actually make a movie .
That 's not real dope they 're smoking ( let alone dogshit or a cockroach ) .Ever see The Departed [ wikipedia.org ] ?
You really think Martin Sheen got thrown out of a window ?
Or than any of those people were actually shot ? This is not only a waste of tax money , but an infringement of my rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're FOR the police using fishing expeditions?
That use to be considered very unamerican.
Don't investigate me unless you have reason to believe that I've committed a crime!If some slashdotter were to call the FBI because of my journals, telling them tales of drugs and prostitution, I hardly think that what may or may not be fiction (some have tried to guess, some have said they don't want to know) should lead to an investigation.
[sj-r.com]Even photos or movies of what appears to be criminal activity.
Ever see a Cheech and Chong movie?
Think that was real dope they were smoking?
Nope, they've stated that they tried using real pot on the very first day of shooting, but they got too stoned to actually make a movie.
That's not real dope they're smoking (let alone dogshit or a cockroach).Ever see The Departed [wikipedia.org]?
You really think Martin Sheen got thrown out of a window?
Or than any of those people were actually shot?This is not only a waste of tax money, but an infringement of my rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305542</id>
	<title>Uh oh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259586300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just poked Osama Bin Laden on his wall.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just poked Osama Bin Laden on his wall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just poked Osama Bin Laden on his wall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30307394</id>
	<title>Okay, then Arrest *Everyone*</title>
	<author>gaspar ilom</author>
	<datestamp>1259601000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; <i>no one in government cares about you, or your drunken antics posted on facespace</i></p><p>Unless you are considered a political enemy by someone in power.   (as some allege happened with Eliot Spitzer)   We should not empower government, and  whichever political animals control it at a given time, with the ability to selectively enforce the law.  That ability is stupendously magnified by the capacity to do a massive, exhaustive search of who commits "crime."</p><p>Thus, government would be <i>more</i> just if it arrests <i>everyone</i> who documents their stupid crimes online.  This would eliminate the injustice of selective enforcement.  And, the massive number of crimes that would be found -- and the ensuing backlog in criminal court --  would likely create pressure to reform  what is considered "illegal."</p><p>Arrest *everyone* who documents illegal antics on "facespace."  Or, restrict government's power, and don't have them in this business, in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; no one in government cares about you , or your drunken antics posted on facespaceUnless you are considered a political enemy by someone in power .
( as some allege happened with Eliot Spitzer ) We should not empower government , and whichever political animals control it at a given time , with the ability to selectively enforce the law .
That ability is stupendously magnified by the capacity to do a massive , exhaustive search of who commits " crime .
" Thus , government would be more just if it arrests everyone who documents their stupid crimes online .
This would eliminate the injustice of selective enforcement .
And , the massive number of crimes that would be found -- and the ensuing backlog in criminal court -- would likely create pressure to reform what is considered " illegal .
" Arrest * everyone * who documents illegal antics on " facespace .
" Or , restrict government 's power , and do n't have them in this business , in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; no one in government cares about you, or your drunken antics posted on facespaceUnless you are considered a political enemy by someone in power.
(as some allege happened with Eliot Spitzer)   We should not empower government, and  whichever political animals control it at a given time, with the ability to selectively enforce the law.
That ability is stupendously magnified by the capacity to do a massive, exhaustive search of who commits "crime.
"Thus, government would be more just if it arrests everyone who documents their stupid crimes online.
This would eliminate the injustice of selective enforcement.
And, the massive number of crimes that would be found -- and the ensuing backlog in criminal court --  would likely create pressure to reform  what is considered "illegal.
"Arrest *everyone* who documents illegal antics on "facespace.
"  Or, restrict government's power, and don't have them in this business, in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30312120</id>
	<title>Re:Most people aren't interesting enough</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1259862720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You're not that interesting outside your <a href="http://slashdot.org/~mcgrew/journal/235049" title="slashdot.org">little</a> [slashdot.org] circle of friends.</i></p><p><a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1338635&amp;cid=29099575" title="slashdot.org">Yes</a> [slashdot.org] <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1372659&amp;cid=29461861" title="slashdot.org">I</a> [slashdot.org] <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1155381&amp;threshold=1&amp;commentsort=0&amp;mode=thread&amp;pid=0" title="slashdot.org">am.</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not that interesting outside your little [ slashdot.org ] circle of friends.Yes [ slashdot.org ] I [ slashdot.org ] am .
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not that interesting outside your little [slashdot.org] circle of friends.Yes [slashdot.org] I [slashdot.org] am.
[slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30307016</id>
	<title>Re:Why wouldn't they?</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1259597520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the feds want to know about you, they can talk to your friends, and ask questions.  They can talk to your business associates, and ask question.  They can question your mom, dad, sisters, cousins, etc.  If they get enough trash on you, they can get a warrant to search your house, your car, your home, computer, and your person.  If they think your friends or family has good dirty evidence, they can get warrants to search THEIR homes, cars, persons.</p><p>So.  Given all of that - just exactly how much privacy is expected with an online social networking thing?  Far less privacy than your home, for which a warrant is required before searching it.  Maybe - just maybe - a little more privacy than a conversation with a job associate, for which no warrant is required before talking to him.  Considerably less privacy than a conversation with your spouse, for which no warrant is required before speaking to him/her.</p><p>I really do think that SOME DEGREE of privacy is appropriate for Facebook, etc.  But, the question is, "How private should Facebook be?"</p><p>Obviously, those pages that are publicly accessible to any bot, any viewer, are most definitely NOT private.  If you've set your page so that it is publicly viewable, by all means, any law enforcement agent in the world can look at it, and use the data.  But, if you set all your pages with maximum privacy and security, then maybe the cop should be required to get a warrant before gaining access.</p><p>I can't really decide where a social networking account sits in the scale of privacy.  I can't agree that they should all be off-limits to the law, nor can I agree that the law should be able to peruse everything ever put onto any page either.  Much depends on those privacy and security settings.</p><p>Bottom line, though - if you have something that you DO NOT want the law to find out about you, DO NOT put it online!!  Don't tell your job associate, don't tell your best friend, don't tell your drinking buddy, don't tell the busybody across the street, and DON'T PUT IT ONLINE!!!  If more than one person shares a secret, it is no longer a secret.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the feds want to know about you , they can talk to your friends , and ask questions .
They can talk to your business associates , and ask question .
They can question your mom , dad , sisters , cousins , etc .
If they get enough trash on you , they can get a warrant to search your house , your car , your home , computer , and your person .
If they think your friends or family has good dirty evidence , they can get warrants to search THEIR homes , cars , persons.So .
Given all of that - just exactly how much privacy is expected with an online social networking thing ?
Far less privacy than your home , for which a warrant is required before searching it .
Maybe - just maybe - a little more privacy than a conversation with a job associate , for which no warrant is required before talking to him .
Considerably less privacy than a conversation with your spouse , for which no warrant is required before speaking to him/her.I really do think that SOME DEGREE of privacy is appropriate for Facebook , etc .
But , the question is , " How private should Facebook be ?
" Obviously , those pages that are publicly accessible to any bot , any viewer , are most definitely NOT private .
If you 've set your page so that it is publicly viewable , by all means , any law enforcement agent in the world can look at it , and use the data .
But , if you set all your pages with maximum privacy and security , then maybe the cop should be required to get a warrant before gaining access.I ca n't really decide where a social networking account sits in the scale of privacy .
I ca n't agree that they should all be off-limits to the law , nor can I agree that the law should be able to peruse everything ever put onto any page either .
Much depends on those privacy and security settings.Bottom line , though - if you have something that you DO NOT want the law to find out about you , DO NOT put it online ! !
Do n't tell your job associate , do n't tell your best friend , do n't tell your drinking buddy , do n't tell the busybody across the street , and DO N'T PUT IT ONLINE ! ! !
If more than one person shares a secret , it is no longer a secret .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the feds want to know about you, they can talk to your friends, and ask questions.
They can talk to your business associates, and ask question.
They can question your mom, dad, sisters, cousins, etc.
If they get enough trash on you, they can get a warrant to search your house, your car, your home, computer, and your person.
If they think your friends or family has good dirty evidence, they can get warrants to search THEIR homes, cars, persons.So.
Given all of that - just exactly how much privacy is expected with an online social networking thing?
Far less privacy than your home, for which a warrant is required before searching it.
Maybe - just maybe - a little more privacy than a conversation with a job associate, for which no warrant is required before talking to him.
Considerably less privacy than a conversation with your spouse, for which no warrant is required before speaking to him/her.I really do think that SOME DEGREE of privacy is appropriate for Facebook, etc.
But, the question is, "How private should Facebook be?
"Obviously, those pages that are publicly accessible to any bot, any viewer, are most definitely NOT private.
If you've set your page so that it is publicly viewable, by all means, any law enforcement agent in the world can look at it, and use the data.
But, if you set all your pages with maximum privacy and security, then maybe the cop should be required to get a warrant before gaining access.I can't really decide where a social networking account sits in the scale of privacy.
I can't agree that they should all be off-limits to the law, nor can I agree that the law should be able to peruse everything ever put onto any page either.
Much depends on those privacy and security settings.Bottom line, though - if you have something that you DO NOT want the law to find out about you, DO NOT put it online!!
Don't tell your job associate, don't tell your best friend, don't tell your drinking buddy, don't tell the busybody across the street, and DON'T PUT IT ONLINE!!!
If more than one person shares a secret, it is no longer a secret.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305906</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306286</id>
	<title>Men in Black?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259591040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"K, did you use that flashy-memory-thing on me?!"</p><p>"No."</p><p>"I'm serious, K! Did you ever use that flashy-memory-thing on me, man?!"</p><p>"No."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" K , did you use that flashy-memory-thing on me ? ! " " No .
" " I 'm serious , K !
Did you ever use that flashy-memory-thing on me , man ? ! " " No .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"K, did you use that flashy-memory-thing on me?!""No.
""I'm serious, K!
Did you ever use that flashy-memory-thing on me, man?!""No.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306052</id>
	<title>Now the NSA is involved...</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1259589300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>....my wife woke up and found weird crop circles in Farmville.  She swears she didn't plant them that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>....my wife woke up and found weird crop circles in Farmville .
She swears she did n't plant them that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>....my wife woke up and found weird crop circles in Farmville.
She swears she didn't plant them that way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305740</id>
	<title>Re:Why wouldn't they?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259587440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I had a facebook account, but I regained my privacy by killing everyone on my friends list, the closing the account.<br>Shit was so cash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a facebook account , but I regained my privacy by killing everyone on my friends list , the closing the account.Shit was so cash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a facebook account, but I regained my privacy by killing everyone on my friends list, the closing the account.Shit was so cash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30308186</id>
	<title>Re:Mafia wars</title>
	<author>PReDiToR</author>
	<datestamp>1259872020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is Mafia Wars one of those annoying applications that comes up every five seconds if you know more than three morons?
<br> <br>I started running <a href="http://bit.ly/fbpure" title="bit.ly">FB Purity</a> [bit.ly]* and now I don't get to see all those games and things any more.
<br> <br> <tt>*Requires Greasemonkey</tt>
<br> <tt>I'm not affiliated with Greasemonkey or FB Purity</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Mafia Wars one of those annoying applications that comes up every five seconds if you know more than three morons ?
I started running FB Purity [ bit.ly ] * and now I do n't get to see all those games and things any more .
* Requires Greasemonkey I 'm not affiliated with Greasemonkey or FB Purity</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Mafia Wars one of those annoying applications that comes up every five seconds if you know more than three morons?
I started running FB Purity [bit.ly]* and now I don't get to see all those games and things any more.
*Requires Greasemonkey
 I'm not affiliated with Greasemonkey or FB Purity</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306216</id>
	<title>Re:Mafia wars</title>
	<author>HuckleCom</author>
	<datestamp>1259590380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With my Crockett hat with awesome defense I'm sure they'll look past me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With my Crockett hat with awesome defense I 'm sure they 'll look past me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With my Crockett hat with awesome defense I'm sure they'll look past me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306408</id>
	<title>Most people aren't interesting enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259592060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really.</p><p>Chances are, no one in government cares about you, or your drunken antics posted on facespace.  If they did, well, you put it out in public, so quit complaining when they read it.</p><p>Take the tin foil off.  You're not that interesting outside your little circle of friends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really.Chances are , no one in government cares about you , or your drunken antics posted on facespace .
If they did , well , you put it out in public , so quit complaining when they read it.Take the tin foil off .
You 're not that interesting outside your little circle of friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really.Chances are, no one in government cares about you, or your drunken antics posted on facespace.
If they did, well, you put it out in public, so quit complaining when they read it.Take the tin foil off.
You're not that interesting outside your little circle of friends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30309666</id>
	<title>That animated GIF...</title>
	<author>GPLDAN</author>
	<datestamp>1259852520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of Osama Bin Laden getting bufu'ed by Liberace probably got me flagged. Ah well, it was worth it....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of Osama Bin Laden getting bufu'ed by Liberace probably got me flagged .
Ah well , it was worth it... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of Osama Bin Laden getting bufu'ed by Liberace probably got me flagged.
Ah well, it was worth it....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30311056</id>
	<title>Re:Most people aren't interesting enough</title>
	<author>HereIAmJH</author>
	<datestamp>1259859480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Chances are, no one in government cares about you</i></p><p>At least not now.</p><p>The problem with "Most people aren't interesting enough" is that as technology improves the 'interesting people' bar keeps getting lowered.  Once upon a time I not only didn't mind posting with my real name on Fidonet echos, I felt that you should use your real name and not hide behind an alias.  Now messages that I posted there in the early 90s are indexed in Google Groups, and I no longer post anywhere with my real name.  Who would have thought what you posted in a hobby network nearly two decades ago would be easily search-able by prospective employers.</p><p>Even though the only thing I have found objectionable in a Google search on my own name is a misquoted Usenet message that attributes someone else's stupidity to me, things that are socially acceptable in one period might not be in another.  I'm eternally thankful that there was no Youtube in my late teens....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chances are , no one in government cares about youAt least not now.The problem with " Most people are n't interesting enough " is that as technology improves the 'interesting people ' bar keeps getting lowered .
Once upon a time I not only did n't mind posting with my real name on Fidonet echos , I felt that you should use your real name and not hide behind an alias .
Now messages that I posted there in the early 90s are indexed in Google Groups , and I no longer post anywhere with my real name .
Who would have thought what you posted in a hobby network nearly two decades ago would be easily search-able by prospective employers.Even though the only thing I have found objectionable in a Google search on my own name is a misquoted Usenet message that attributes someone else 's stupidity to me , things that are socially acceptable in one period might not be in another .
I 'm eternally thankful that there was no Youtube in my late teens... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chances are, no one in government cares about youAt least not now.The problem with "Most people aren't interesting enough" is that as technology improves the 'interesting people' bar keeps getting lowered.
Once upon a time I not only didn't mind posting with my real name on Fidonet echos, I felt that you should use your real name and not hide behind an alias.
Now messages that I posted there in the early 90s are indexed in Google Groups, and I no longer post anywhere with my real name.
Who would have thought what you posted in a hobby network nearly two decades ago would be easily search-able by prospective employers.Even though the only thing I have found objectionable in a Google search on my own name is a misquoted Usenet message that attributes someone else's stupidity to me, things that are socially acceptable in one period might not be in another.
I'm eternally thankful that there was no Youtube in my late teens....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306408</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30307258</id>
	<title>what about cyberbullying?</title>
	<author>memnock</author>
	<datestamp>1259599620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>like what they did to indymedia?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>like what they did to indymedia ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>like what they did to indymedia?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30308138</id>
	<title>Re:Why wouldn't they?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259871240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a key difference between viewing information in a public forum and using that information towards a purpose (eg, possible criminal investigation). There is precedent for this view rooted in SCOTUS rulings. One's 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment rights are not violated if evidenced obtained from violating them is not used against. Eg, if police illegally search some portion of your house while executing a lawful search warrant, but what they seize during the unlawful portion of their search is not admitted into evidence, then your 4th Amendment rights were not violated, even though police did search a portion of your house unlawfully. For one's rights to be violated, one must have suffer from a violation.</p><p>Social networking sites are "public" unless privately restricted but I believe that people who use them have a right to expect that information they share through it will not be logged and used to their detriment. People have the right to expect that other users are using the site for its intended purpose: to socialize in a digital environment, not to stalk, log, or gather information to use against others.</p><p>I believe that the government should not surveil anyone and everyone just fishing for anything remotely, well, fishy. I believe the government has to have a reasonable basis of some sort to investigate someone. Surveillance of "the cloud" should have to follow the same protocol as any other surveillance efforts. Quite honestly, I want my government to resemble China's government in as few ways as possible. Fishing on social networking sites is just too similar to what a repressive regime would do for my tastes.</p><p>Now, law enforcement officials obtaining warrants for surveillance and including in these warrants requests to monitor suspects online actions is something very different. I view that as routine police work. Law enforcement should definitely be able to go through normal warrant channels to be able to view or collect any information about a suspect or person of interest through observation of online actions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a key difference between viewing information in a public forum and using that information towards a purpose ( eg , possible criminal investigation ) .
There is precedent for this view rooted in SCOTUS rulings .
One 's 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment rights are not violated if evidenced obtained from violating them is not used against .
Eg , if police illegally search some portion of your house while executing a lawful search warrant , but what they seize during the unlawful portion of their search is not admitted into evidence , then your 4th Amendment rights were not violated , even though police did search a portion of your house unlawfully .
For one 's rights to be violated , one must have suffer from a violation.Social networking sites are " public " unless privately restricted but I believe that people who use them have a right to expect that information they share through it will not be logged and used to their detriment .
People have the right to expect that other users are using the site for its intended purpose : to socialize in a digital environment , not to stalk , log , or gather information to use against others.I believe that the government should not surveil anyone and everyone just fishing for anything remotely , well , fishy .
I believe the government has to have a reasonable basis of some sort to investigate someone .
Surveillance of " the cloud " should have to follow the same protocol as any other surveillance efforts .
Quite honestly , I want my government to resemble China 's government in as few ways as possible .
Fishing on social networking sites is just too similar to what a repressive regime would do for my tastes.Now , law enforcement officials obtaining warrants for surveillance and including in these warrants requests to monitor suspects online actions is something very different .
I view that as routine police work .
Law enforcement should definitely be able to go through normal warrant channels to be able to view or collect any information about a suspect or person of interest through observation of online actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a key difference between viewing information in a public forum and using that information towards a purpose (eg, possible criminal investigation).
There is precedent for this view rooted in SCOTUS rulings.
One's 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment rights are not violated if evidenced obtained from violating them is not used against.
Eg, if police illegally search some portion of your house while executing a lawful search warrant, but what they seize during the unlawful portion of their search is not admitted into evidence, then your 4th Amendment rights were not violated, even though police did search a portion of your house unlawfully.
For one's rights to be violated, one must have suffer from a violation.Social networking sites are "public" unless privately restricted but I believe that people who use them have a right to expect that information they share through it will not be logged and used to their detriment.
People have the right to expect that other users are using the site for its intended purpose: to socialize in a digital environment, not to stalk, log, or gather information to use against others.I believe that the government should not surveil anyone and everyone just fishing for anything remotely, well, fishy.
I believe the government has to have a reasonable basis of some sort to investigate someone.
Surveillance of "the cloud" should have to follow the same protocol as any other surveillance efforts.
Quite honestly, I want my government to resemble China's government in as few ways as possible.
Fishing on social networking sites is just too similar to what a repressive regime would do for my tastes.Now, law enforcement officials obtaining warrants for surveillance and including in these warrants requests to monitor suspects online actions is something very different.
I view that as routine police work.
Law enforcement should definitely be able to go through normal warrant channels to be able to view or collect any information about a suspect or person of interest through observation of online actions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30307582</id>
	<title>Yes they are</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1259603460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next question.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30312180</id>
	<title>Re:They have to. Security Clearance.</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1259862960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So, if you have a friend on Facebook who had to get security clearance, you were investigated.<br></i></p><p>I have over 100 friends on facebook.</p><p>My clearance investigation took 2 months.   Do you really think that they investigate everyone 'friended' in facebook?</p><p>My closest friends don't even have Facebook accounts.   For them to investigate EVERYONE you friended on facebook, they are really wasting their resources and demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of what Facebook is.</p><p>And 100 friends on facebook is very few.  I could easily add the recommended friends and rack up a few hundred more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if you have a friend on Facebook who had to get security clearance , you were investigated.I have over 100 friends on facebook.My clearance investigation took 2 months .
Do you really think that they investigate everyone 'friended ' in facebook ? My closest friends do n't even have Facebook accounts .
For them to investigate EVERYONE you friended on facebook , they are really wasting their resources and demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of what Facebook is.And 100 friends on facebook is very few .
I could easily add the recommended friends and rack up a few hundred more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if you have a friend on Facebook who had to get security clearance, you were investigated.I have over 100 friends on facebook.My clearance investigation took 2 months.
Do you really think that they investigate everyone 'friended' in facebook?My closest friends don't even have Facebook accounts.
For them to investigate EVERYONE you friended on facebook, they are really wasting their resources and demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of what Facebook is.And 100 friends on facebook is very few.
I could easily add the recommended friends and rack up a few hundred more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306294</id>
	<title>Narrow sighted insights all over this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259591160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The issue isn't with, say, getting into facebook and checking out all your stupid farmville posts / drunken photos or etc, the issue is more on the privileged access side of things. Start thinking along the lines of your social graph and the back end of these sites and you have the gist of the real privacy issue here.</p><p>How many times you've viewed a certain profile, the times of day you access the system, the timeline of your creation and deletion of connections with other people, the correlation of your mood from content against these actions etc etc. Base level data mining activity. Volume, frequency, timing. Combine this with X number of social sites and other activity in the cloud and you can get a pretty concise picture of someone's life depending on their volume of online interactions. It doesn't matter what the \_actual\_ content is, it's the least important part of the picture.</p><p>Most of the responses to this topic online tend to drill down and go "I don't care if X can see my posted Y, I posted it assuming it was public domain". It really indicates that people are only aware of about a third of the real activities that are captured when you interact with social networking sites and the cloud as a whole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The issue is n't with , say , getting into facebook and checking out all your stupid farmville posts / drunken photos or etc , the issue is more on the privileged access side of things .
Start thinking along the lines of your social graph and the back end of these sites and you have the gist of the real privacy issue here.How many times you 've viewed a certain profile , the times of day you access the system , the timeline of your creation and deletion of connections with other people , the correlation of your mood from content against these actions etc etc .
Base level data mining activity .
Volume , frequency , timing .
Combine this with X number of social sites and other activity in the cloud and you can get a pretty concise picture of someone 's life depending on their volume of online interactions .
It does n't matter what the \ _actual \ _ content is , it 's the least important part of the picture.Most of the responses to this topic online tend to drill down and go " I do n't care if X can see my posted Y , I posted it assuming it was public domain " .
It really indicates that people are only aware of about a third of the real activities that are captured when you interact with social networking sites and the cloud as a whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The issue isn't with, say, getting into facebook and checking out all your stupid farmville posts / drunken photos or etc, the issue is more on the privileged access side of things.
Start thinking along the lines of your social graph and the back end of these sites and you have the gist of the real privacy issue here.How many times you've viewed a certain profile, the times of day you access the system, the timeline of your creation and deletion of connections with other people, the correlation of your mood from content against these actions etc etc.
Base level data mining activity.
Volume, frequency, timing.
Combine this with X number of social sites and other activity in the cloud and you can get a pretty concise picture of someone's life depending on their volume of online interactions.
It doesn't matter what the \_actual\_ content is, it's the least important part of the picture.Most of the responses to this topic online tend to drill down and go "I don't care if X can see my posted Y, I posted it assuming it was public domain".
It really indicates that people are only aware of about a third of the real activities that are captured when you interact with social networking sites and the cloud as a whole.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306738</id>
	<title>What does that mean?</title>
	<author>vvaduva</author>
	<datestamp>1259594760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the heck is "cyberstalking?"  Doesn't wholesale wiretapping of both voice and data include this cyberstalking notion? EFF already sued over the patriot act and Obama's administration has <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2009/04/08/eff-attorney-explain.html" title="boingboing.net">made it even worse</a> [boingboing.net] than before.  Not even Bush kept email lists of their political enemies (as far as we know), so the question is moot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the heck is " cyberstalking ?
" Does n't wholesale wiretapping of both voice and data include this cyberstalking notion ?
EFF already sued over the patriot act and Obama 's administration has made it even worse [ boingboing.net ] than before .
Not even Bush kept email lists of their political enemies ( as far as we know ) , so the question is moot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the heck is "cyberstalking?
"  Doesn't wholesale wiretapping of both voice and data include this cyberstalking notion?
EFF already sued over the patriot act and Obama's administration has made it even worse [boingboing.net] than before.
Not even Bush kept email lists of their political enemies (as far as we know), so the question is moot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306270</id>
	<title>Re:Why wouldn't they?</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259590980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>                Anyone who thinks that any law enforcement agency will hand over any information at all concerning ongoing investigations is living on Fantasy Island. Even letting criminals know that an investigation of them is not in progress is not going to happen. In other words courts may do as they may but this law suit has severe limitations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who thinks that any law enforcement agency will hand over any information at all concerning ongoing investigations is living on Fantasy Island .
Even letting criminals know that an investigation of them is not in progress is not going to happen .
In other words courts may do as they may but this law suit has severe limitations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>                Anyone who thinks that any law enforcement agency will hand over any information at all concerning ongoing investigations is living on Fantasy Island.
Even letting criminals know that an investigation of them is not in progress is not going to happen.
In other words courts may do as they may but this law suit has severe limitations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30309144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30309084
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30307016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30311056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30310116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30321966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30307030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30307192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30312180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30308138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30307394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30308146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30307262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30308712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30312444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30309758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30312120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30308186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30309564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_02_2316240_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_2316240.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_2316240.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_2316240.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_2316240.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30309564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30312180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30321966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30307016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30309758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30312444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30308138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_2316240.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30308186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30307262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_2316240.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306058
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_2316240.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30307258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_2316240.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30307192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30308712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30309144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30309084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_2316240.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30312120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30307394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30311056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30310116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30308146
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30306706
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_02_2316240.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30305932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_02_2316240.30307030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
