<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_03_2354215</id>
	<title>UK Judge Orders Wikipedia To Reveal User's Identity</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1259841360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>BoxRec writes with this excerpt from <em>The Daily Mail</em>: <i>"A mother trying to identify a blackmailer who posted 'sensitive' details about her child on Wikipedia has <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232901/Wikipedia-ordered-reveal-identity-editor-accused-blackmailing-mother-child.html#ixzz0YdU7JKTk">won the right to find out who edited her entry</a>. In the first case of its kind, a High Court judge has ordered the online encyclopedia's parent company  to disclose the IP address of one of its registered users."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>BoxRec writes with this excerpt from The Daily Mail : " A mother trying to identify a blackmailer who posted 'sensitive ' details about her child on Wikipedia has won the right to find out who edited her entry .
In the first case of its kind , a High Court judge has ordered the online encyclopedia 's parent company to disclose the IP address of one of its registered users .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BoxRec writes with this excerpt from The Daily Mail: "A mother trying to identify a blackmailer who posted 'sensitive' details about her child on Wikipedia has won the right to find out who edited her entry.
In the first case of its kind, a High Court judge has ordered the online encyclopedia's parent company  to disclose the IP address of one of its registered users.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321952</id>
	<title>Re:slashhordes:</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1259920740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>So she's gone to the High Court to get the information, on the basis that the user who posted the article has a case to answer for, and the Judge agreed. If he didn't think there was a case to answer for, he wouldn't have issued the order.</i> <br> <br>I guess it's different in the US, where you have to actually have a case, rather than a case for a case.<br> <br> <i>But on the larger point - are you saying that a civil case appellant should never be able to gain user information from a 3rd party on the basis that that user has a case to answer for?</i> <br> <br>Yes.<br> <br> <i>Because that's an awfully restrictive setup, where only criminal proceedings can gather information from 3rd parties.</i> <br> <br>Civil case or criminal case, I don't care.  But it has to be an actual case.  A subpoena is easy to get if you have an actual case.  But if you file a civil case, then the person being sued has rights.  To countersue, to collect lawyers fees, and such.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So she 's gone to the High Court to get the information , on the basis that the user who posted the article has a case to answer for , and the Judge agreed .
If he did n't think there was a case to answer for , he would n't have issued the order .
I guess it 's different in the US , where you have to actually have a case , rather than a case for a case .
But on the larger point - are you saying that a civil case appellant should never be able to gain user information from a 3rd party on the basis that that user has a case to answer for ?
Yes. Because that 's an awfully restrictive setup , where only criminal proceedings can gather information from 3rd parties .
Civil case or criminal case , I do n't care .
But it has to be an actual case .
A subpoena is easy to get if you have an actual case .
But if you file a civil case , then the person being sued has rights .
To countersue , to collect lawyers fees , and such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So she's gone to the High Court to get the information, on the basis that the user who posted the article has a case to answer for, and the Judge agreed.
If he didn't think there was a case to answer for, he wouldn't have issued the order.
I guess it's different in the US, where you have to actually have a case, rather than a case for a case.
But on the larger point - are you saying that a civil case appellant should never be able to gain user information from a 3rd party on the basis that that user has a case to answer for?
Yes.  Because that's an awfully restrictive setup, where only criminal proceedings can gather information from 3rd parties.
Civil case or criminal case, I don't care.
But it has to be an actual case.
A subpoena is easy to get if you have an actual case.
But if you file a civil case, then the person being sued has rights.
To countersue, to collect lawyers fees, and such.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320914</id>
	<title>Re:Jurisdiction?</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1259862180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why I love Wikileaks, at least so far. They actually protect their sources. And they do seem to show some discretion about what they publish, which helps prevent blackmail abuse. I was vastly amused when they published various manuals on operations at Guantanamo Bay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why I love Wikileaks , at least so far .
They actually protect their sources .
And they do seem to show some discretion about what they publish , which helps prevent blackmail abuse .
I was vastly amused when they published various manuals on operations at Guantanamo Bay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why I love Wikileaks, at least so far.
They actually protect their sources.
And they do seem to show some discretion about what they publish, which helps prevent blackmail abuse.
I was vastly amused when they published various manuals on operations at Guantanamo Bay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30323976</id>
	<title>Re:Tor</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1259943540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slashdot started not letting me post for a while because I ran a Tor node.  It took a couple E-mails back and forth after I'd shut it down to be able to post on Slashdot again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot started not letting me post for a while because I ran a Tor node .
It took a couple E-mails back and forth after I 'd shut it down to be able to post on Slashdot again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot started not letting me post for a while because I ran a Tor node.
It took a couple E-mails back and forth after I'd shut it down to be able to post on Slashdot again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319874</id>
	<title>Re:Jurisdiction?</title>
	<author>Chyeld</author>
	<datestamp>1259852280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A whistle blower is someone who alerts the media or authorities to wrong doing, by coming forward with evidence of this wrong doing.</p><p>A blackmailer is someone who alerts a victim that they have evidence of either wrong doing or simply humiliating facts and will go to the media or authorities if steps aren't taken by the victim.</p><p>Our "Mr. X" updated a Wikipedia article with possibly true information concerning our woman's expense reports and her child. They then sent two letters which implied they had more information they were going to share and had possibly already done so with part of it.</p><p>It really doesn't take a bright bulb to pick which slot Mr. X fits in here chief. Stop over reacting and realize that sometimes, just sometimes, the legal system is working.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A whistle blower is someone who alerts the media or authorities to wrong doing , by coming forward with evidence of this wrong doing.A blackmailer is someone who alerts a victim that they have evidence of either wrong doing or simply humiliating facts and will go to the media or authorities if steps are n't taken by the victim.Our " Mr. X " updated a Wikipedia article with possibly true information concerning our woman 's expense reports and her child .
They then sent two letters which implied they had more information they were going to share and had possibly already done so with part of it.It really does n't take a bright bulb to pick which slot Mr. X fits in here chief .
Stop over reacting and realize that sometimes , just sometimes , the legal system is working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A whistle blower is someone who alerts the media or authorities to wrong doing, by coming forward with evidence of this wrong doing.A blackmailer is someone who alerts a victim that they have evidence of either wrong doing or simply humiliating facts and will go to the media or authorities if steps aren't taken by the victim.Our "Mr. X" updated a Wikipedia article with possibly true information concerning our woman's expense reports and her child.
They then sent two letters which implied they had more information they were going to share and had possibly already done so with part of it.It really doesn't take a bright bulb to pick which slot Mr. X fits in here chief.
Stop over reacting and realize that sometimes, just sometimes, the legal system is working.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319340</id>
	<title>Re:slashhordes:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259847960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You seem to have confused rights and privileges. Irrespective, the only responsibility you have when it comes to anonymity is making sure you do it properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You seem to have confused rights and privileges .
Irrespective , the only responsibility you have when it comes to anonymity is making sure you do it properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You seem to have confused rights and privileges.
Irrespective, the only responsibility you have when it comes to anonymity is making sure you do it properly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321172</id>
	<title>Re:Tor</title>
	<author>phantomcircuit</author>
	<datestamp>1259865360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually ALL of the TOR exit nodes are known.  It is a known flaw of the TOR network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually ALL of the TOR exit nodes are known .
It is a known flaw of the TOR network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually ALL of the TOR exit nodes are known.
It is a known flaw of the TOR network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319022</id>
	<title>it's not whistleblowing, its blackmail</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1259846220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>whistleblowing is when you go to the press and release info of a criminal nature. blackmailing is when you send letters to the target with a threat to release the info, whether of a criminal nature or just a private, sensitive nature</p><p>please report to the nearest droid maintenance facility and have your moral circuitry checked out, thanks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>whistleblowing is when you go to the press and release info of a criminal nature .
blackmailing is when you send letters to the target with a threat to release the info , whether of a criminal nature or just a private , sensitive natureplease report to the nearest droid maintenance facility and have your moral circuitry checked out , thanks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>whistleblowing is when you go to the press and release info of a criminal nature.
blackmailing is when you send letters to the target with a threat to release the info, whether of a criminal nature or just a private, sensitive natureplease report to the nearest droid maintenance facility and have your moral circuitry checked out, thanks</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320146</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>geniice</author>
	<datestamp>1259854380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The judge has made many many public rulings. There is enough public data to draw a reasonable conclusion as to how much he can be trusted.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The judge has made many many public rulings .
There is enough public data to draw a reasonable conclusion as to how much he can be trusted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The judge has made many many public rulings.
There is enough public data to draw a reasonable conclusion as to how much he can be trusted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319208</id>
	<title>Good luck enforcing it</title>
	<author>andrewagill</author>
	<datestamp>1259847180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah, Daily Fail...you seem to have forgotten that the Wikimedia Foundation isn't in the UK.

Oh, wait.  They didn't.  They just ignored the implications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , Daily Fail...you seem to have forgotten that the Wikimedia Foundation is n't in the UK .
Oh , wait .
They did n't .
They just ignored the implications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, Daily Fail...you seem to have forgotten that the Wikimedia Foundation isn't in the UK.
Oh, wait.
They didn't.
They just ignored the implications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319586</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259850000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I'm sure that'll show those damn blackmailers, "If you go to the Police, they'll force you to reveal to the public the information I'm blackmailing you over! Muhaha!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I 'm sure that 'll show those damn blackmailers , " If you go to the Police , they 'll force you to reveal to the public the information I 'm blackmailing you over !
Muhaha ! "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I'm sure that'll show those damn blackmailers, "If you go to the Police, they'll force you to reveal to the public the information I'm blackmailing you over!
Muhaha!"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322646</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1259934300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This is part of the reason why anonymous internet contributors like ourselves do not take the place of an actual judge in an actual courtroom, so <strong>it makes it seem sort of stupid to sit here and second-guess the judge</strong>.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
You must be new here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is part of the reason why anonymous internet contributors like ourselves do not take the place of an actual judge in an actual courtroom , so it makes it seem sort of stupid to sit here and second-guess the judge .
You must be new here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is part of the reason why anonymous internet contributors like ourselves do not take the place of an actual judge in an actual courtroom, so it makes it seem sort of stupid to sit here and second-guess the judge.
You must be new here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322750</id>
	<title>Re:Jurisdiction?</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1259935380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> I don't think there's any compelling reason to protect the anonymity of someone who's blackmailing someone else from your website.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
And yet there are people on slashdot who will seriously argue this is somehow impinging on the blackmailer's free speech, and that Wikipedia are committing censorship..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think there 's any compelling reason to protect the anonymity of someone who 's blackmailing someone else from your website .
And yet there are people on slashdot who will seriously argue this is somehow impinging on the blackmailer 's free speech , and that Wikipedia are committing censorship. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I don't think there's any compelling reason to protect the anonymity of someone who's blackmailing someone else from your website.
And yet there are people on slashdot who will seriously argue this is somehow impinging on the blackmailer's free speech, and that Wikipedia are committing censorship..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318948</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1259845920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe so, but when all of the details are secret we just have to trust the judge who says that according to what he's seen the woman has probable cause to suspect blackmail.  This is part of the reason why anonymous internet contributors like ourselves do not take the place of an actual judge in an actual courtroom, so it makes it seem sort of stupid to sit here and second-guess the judge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe so , but when all of the details are secret we just have to trust the judge who says that according to what he 's seen the woman has probable cause to suspect blackmail .
This is part of the reason why anonymous internet contributors like ourselves do not take the place of an actual judge in an actual courtroom , so it makes it seem sort of stupid to sit here and second-guess the judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe so, but when all of the details are secret we just have to trust the judge who says that according to what he's seen the woman has probable cause to suspect blackmail.
This is part of the reason why anonymous internet contributors like ourselves do not take the place of an actual judge in an actual courtroom, so it makes it seem sort of stupid to sit here and second-guess the judge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318960</id>
	<title>I'm shocked and amazed.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259845980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not by the court's order, but that the Daily Mail actually published a decent, non-sensationalistic article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not by the court 's order , but that the Daily Mail actually published a decent , non-sensationalistic article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not by the court's order, but that the Daily Mail actually published a decent, non-sensationalistic article.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319142</id>
	<title>slashhordes:</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1259846820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>blackmail is blackmail is blackmail</p><p>whatever you think of your rights online, criminal activity renders some of your rights null and void</p><p>of course you have rights in a free society: as long as you also abide by your responsibilities. this is true of actual, flawed societies that are not entirely free, and also true of any hypothetical societies you can imagine that function perfectly: when you break your responsibilities you have in a free society, you have abdicated your rights. do you honestly think there is any way around that fact? a society of individuals who do not abide by their responsibilities is by direct consequence a society with few rights as well</p><p>the government is a side issue: most of your rights are violated in this world by your fellow citizens, not the government. of course the government also violates your rights. in a society trying to improve itself, this is revealed, discussed, and punished. just like individuals who violate your rights deserve to be punished. sorry, they don't deserve to be punished, they MUST be punished to show there is genuine consequences for abdication of responsibility in this world. without such enforcement, there's no reason to respect anyone's rights, whether by government, or a fellow citizen</p><p>to most of you, the previous paragraph is eye-glazingly obvious</p><p>however, i feel the need to say it, because underneath this story we will see a lot of howling of the government violating people's rights. when the fact is, if you blackmail someone, you HAVE to have your rights violated, for the sake of a functioning free society, actual or theoretical</p><p>we see a lot of complaints on these forums and in general about rights. what we don't see much discussion is one about responsibilities. please do your small part and keep that in mind: for every right you claim, you are also taking on an implied responsibility you must keep if you wish to maintain the rights you cherish</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>blackmail is blackmail is blackmailwhatever you think of your rights online , criminal activity renders some of your rights null and voidof course you have rights in a free society : as long as you also abide by your responsibilities .
this is true of actual , flawed societies that are not entirely free , and also true of any hypothetical societies you can imagine that function perfectly : when you break your responsibilities you have in a free society , you have abdicated your rights .
do you honestly think there is any way around that fact ?
a society of individuals who do not abide by their responsibilities is by direct consequence a society with few rights as wellthe government is a side issue : most of your rights are violated in this world by your fellow citizens , not the government .
of course the government also violates your rights .
in a society trying to improve itself , this is revealed , discussed , and punished .
just like individuals who violate your rights deserve to be punished .
sorry , they do n't deserve to be punished , they MUST be punished to show there is genuine consequences for abdication of responsibility in this world .
without such enforcement , there 's no reason to respect anyone 's rights , whether by government , or a fellow citizento most of you , the previous paragraph is eye-glazingly obvioushowever , i feel the need to say it , because underneath this story we will see a lot of howling of the government violating people 's rights .
when the fact is , if you blackmail someone , you HAVE to have your rights violated , for the sake of a functioning free society , actual or theoreticalwe see a lot of complaints on these forums and in general about rights .
what we do n't see much discussion is one about responsibilities .
please do your small part and keep that in mind : for every right you claim , you are also taking on an implied responsibility you must keep if you wish to maintain the rights you cherish</tokentext>
<sentencetext>blackmail is blackmail is blackmailwhatever you think of your rights online, criminal activity renders some of your rights null and voidof course you have rights in a free society: as long as you also abide by your responsibilities.
this is true of actual, flawed societies that are not entirely free, and also true of any hypothetical societies you can imagine that function perfectly: when you break your responsibilities you have in a free society, you have abdicated your rights.
do you honestly think there is any way around that fact?
a society of individuals who do not abide by their responsibilities is by direct consequence a society with few rights as wellthe government is a side issue: most of your rights are violated in this world by your fellow citizens, not the government.
of course the government also violates your rights.
in a society trying to improve itself, this is revealed, discussed, and punished.
just like individuals who violate your rights deserve to be punished.
sorry, they don't deserve to be punished, they MUST be punished to show there is genuine consequences for abdication of responsibility in this world.
without such enforcement, there's no reason to respect anyone's rights, whether by government, or a fellow citizento most of you, the previous paragraph is eye-glazingly obvioushowever, i feel the need to say it, because underneath this story we will see a lot of howling of the government violating people's rights.
when the fact is, if you blackmail someone, you HAVE to have your rights violated, for the sake of a functioning free society, actual or theoreticalwe see a lot of complaints on these forums and in general about rights.
what we don't see much discussion is one about responsibilities.
please do your small part and keep that in mind: for every right you claim, you are also taking on an implied responsibility you must keep if you wish to maintain the rights you cherish</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320216</id>
	<title>Re:Jurisdiction?</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1259855220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah right, because exposing a blackmailer is the same as working for the ministry of truth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah right , because exposing a blackmailer is the same as working for the ministry of truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah right, because exposing a blackmailer is the same as working for the ministry of truth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320102</id>
	<title>leeching the neighbours wifi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259854020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My modem is located in the front bedroom and when I use the laptop in the kitchen all the way in the back, the laptop will switch to a neighbours signal which is much stronger there.</p><p>Im actually using it now and surf all my porn this way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My modem is located in the front bedroom and when I use the laptop in the kitchen all the way in the back , the laptop will switch to a neighbours signal which is much stronger there.Im actually using it now and surf all my porn this way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My modem is located in the front bedroom and when I use the laptop in the kitchen all the way in the back, the laptop will switch to a neighbours signal which is much stronger there.Im actually using it now and surf all my porn this way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320878</id>
	<title>Re:slashhordes:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259861820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> If there was any blackmail, there is not any current legal action regarding it</p> </div><p>Ins't the entire article is about said legal action regarding blackmail?</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Mr Justice Tugendhat said in his judgment at the High Court: 'In ordinary language, the mother believes that she is the subject of an attempt at blackmail. On the information before the court, she has reason to believe that.'</p></div><p>In other words, the judge feels that the business women is correct.  The judge likely wants to proceed with the case; how exactly would you have the court proceed?  Should the case just be dropped because the person used the internet to post?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If there was any blackmail , there is not any current legal action regarding it Ins't the entire article is about said legal action regarding blackmail ?
Mr Justice Tugendhat said in his judgment at the High Court : 'In ordinary language , the mother believes that she is the subject of an attempt at blackmail .
On the information before the court , she has reason to believe that .
'In other words , the judge feels that the business women is correct .
The judge likely wants to proceed with the case ; how exactly would you have the court proceed ?
Should the case just be dropped because the person used the internet to post ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If there was any blackmail, there is not any current legal action regarding it Ins't the entire article is about said legal action regarding blackmail?
Mr Justice Tugendhat said in his judgment at the High Court: 'In ordinary language, the mother believes that she is the subject of an attempt at blackmail.
On the information before the court, she has reason to believe that.
'In other words, the judge feels that the business women is correct.
The judge likely wants to proceed with the case; how exactly would you have the court proceed?
Should the case just be dropped because the person used the internet to post?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30327324</id>
	<title>Greater London Council of Florida</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259957640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey isn't this like the copyright theft of the UK National Gallery pictures whereby Wikipedia told the National Gallery to go fugg themselves because under US law it was OK. Well given that the wikipedia servers are in Florida which is way out of the jurisdiction of the UK courts then Wikipedia should say "Go fugg yourselves. Send us a picture  of the event."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey is n't this like the copyright theft of the UK National Gallery pictures whereby Wikipedia told the National Gallery to go fugg themselves because under US law it was OK. Well given that the wikipedia servers are in Florida which is way out of the jurisdiction of the UK courts then Wikipedia should say " Go fugg yourselves .
Send us a picture of the event .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey isn't this like the copyright theft of the UK National Gallery pictures whereby Wikipedia told the National Gallery to go fugg themselves because under US law it was OK. Well given that the wikipedia servers are in Florida which is way out of the jurisdiction of the UK courts then Wikipedia should say "Go fugg yourselves.
Send us a picture  of the event.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322664</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>fbjon</author>
	<datestamp>1259934600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But what kind of whistleblower would threaten to reveval information about the child of the target, whatever the information? The evil blackmailing kind, is my best guess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But what kind of whistleblower would threaten to reveval information about the child of the target , whatever the information ?
The evil blackmailing kind , is my best guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But what kind of whistleblower would threaten to reveval information about the child of the target, whatever the information?
The evil blackmailing kind, is my best guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319362</id>
	<title>Re:slashhordes:</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1259848140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>blackmail is blackmail is blackmail</i> <br> <br>And what if it isn't blackmail?  We have one person asserting something and demanding information.  We don't have a DA filing charges and issuing a warrant.  We have what may be the beginings of a civil suit, but nothing criminal that I see.  In fact, the order is to identify the person so that the woman offended can "identify" that person, and not because of any court action against the unidentified person.  <br> <br>As far as the court is concerned, there is no search for the truth for a court case, but because someone who feels wrong asked for it, the court said "yes."  If there was any blackmail, there is not any current legal action regarding it, so this request isn't related to blackmail charges, just some woman who wants to know who is saying bad things about her.</htmltext>
<tokenext>blackmail is blackmail is blackmail And what if it is n't blackmail ?
We have one person asserting something and demanding information .
We do n't have a DA filing charges and issuing a warrant .
We have what may be the beginings of a civil suit , but nothing criminal that I see .
In fact , the order is to identify the person so that the woman offended can " identify " that person , and not because of any court action against the unidentified person .
As far as the court is concerned , there is no search for the truth for a court case , but because someone who feels wrong asked for it , the court said " yes .
" If there was any blackmail , there is not any current legal action regarding it , so this request is n't related to blackmail charges , just some woman who wants to know who is saying bad things about her .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>blackmail is blackmail is blackmail  And what if it isn't blackmail?
We have one person asserting something and demanding information.
We don't have a DA filing charges and issuing a warrant.
We have what may be the beginings of a civil suit, but nothing criminal that I see.
In fact, the order is to identify the person so that the woman offended can "identify" that person, and not because of any court action against the unidentified person.
As far as the court is concerned, there is no search for the truth for a court case, but because someone who feels wrong asked for it, the court said "yes.
"  If there was any blackmail, there is not any current legal action regarding it, so this request isn't related to blackmail charges, just some woman who wants to know who is saying bad things about her.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319926</id>
	<title>Two men can keep a secret if one of them is dead.</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1259852580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What would happen should Wikipedia hand over false information? Surely the courts wouldn't know any better. Can Wikipedia claim it's doesn't keep IP info?</i> </p><p>You can't take back the lie.</p><p>You never know what will be exposed in a civil and criminal investigation.</p><p>What will come out at trial.</p><p>It makes no sense to open the door to deeper and more dangerous inquiries into your own conduct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would happen should Wikipedia hand over false information ?
Surely the courts would n't know any better .
Can Wikipedia claim it 's does n't keep IP info ?
You ca n't take back the lie.You never know what will be exposed in a civil and criminal investigation.What will come out at trial.It makes no sense to open the door to deeper and more dangerous inquiries into your own conduct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would happen should Wikipedia hand over false information?
Surely the courts wouldn't know any better.
Can Wikipedia claim it's doesn't keep IP info?
You can't take back the lie.You never know what will be exposed in a civil and criminal investigation.What will come out at trial.It makes no sense to open the door to deeper and more dangerous inquiries into your own conduct.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319694</id>
	<title>Re:Do you believe everything someone tells you?</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1259850900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great minds harbour similar suspicions... damnear what I said up above before reading down this far. It all just seems too convenient.</p><p>And anyone can print a blackmail letter these days... hell, you can even get a font that mimics the old "glued characters from newsprint cutouts" trick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great minds harbour similar suspicions... damnear what I said up above before reading down this far .
It all just seems too convenient.And anyone can print a blackmail letter these days... hell , you can even get a font that mimics the old " glued characters from newsprint cutouts " trick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great minds harbour similar suspicions... damnear what I said up above before reading down this far.
It all just seems too convenient.And anyone can print a blackmail letter these days... hell, you can even get a font that mimics the old "glued characters from newsprint cutouts" trick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318984</id>
	<title>Whistle blowers don't involve people's children.</title>
	<author>EWAdams</author>
	<datestamp>1259846100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No excuse. None.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No excuse .
None .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No excuse.
None.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319286</id>
	<title>Strawman:</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1259847660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you point me to the comments where the "slashhordes" have been outraged by this court order? I mean, your rant is all very nice, I just don't see who it's directed against? "we will see a lot of howling", "we see a lot of complaints on these forums and in general about rights"? Where?</p><p><i>what we don't see much discussion is one about responsibilities.</i></p><p>There's plenty of discussion. Indeed, if X is a right, then that surely implies the discussion that not infringing X is a responsibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you point me to the comments where the " slashhordes " have been outraged by this court order ?
I mean , your rant is all very nice , I just do n't see who it 's directed against ?
" we will see a lot of howling " , " we see a lot of complaints on these forums and in general about rights " ?
Where ? what we do n't see much discussion is one about responsibilities.There 's plenty of discussion .
Indeed , if X is a right , then that surely implies the discussion that not infringing X is a responsibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you point me to the comments where the "slashhordes" have been outraged by this court order?
I mean, your rant is all very nice, I just don't see who it's directed against?
"we will see a lot of howling", "we see a lot of complaints on these forums and in general about rights"?
Where?what we don't see much discussion is one about responsibilities.There's plenty of discussion.
Indeed, if X is a right, then that surely implies the discussion that not infringing X is a responsibility.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318810</id>
	<title>Tor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259845140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if he/she used Tor?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if he/she used Tor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if he/she used Tor?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30326156</id>
	<title>Re:Let me be the first to say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259953020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A literal first post.</p><p>Modded +5 funny.</p><p>Brings a tear to my eye.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A literal first post.Modded + 5 funny.Brings a tear to my eye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A literal first post.Modded +5 funny.Brings a tear to my eye.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318824</id>
	<title>Uh oh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259845260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn it, I'm screwed...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn it , I 'm screwed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn it, I'm screwed...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321842</id>
	<title>Re:WARNING - DAILY FAIL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259919000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Far-right?<br>Maybe you don't know what far-right it, I don't doubt that the Daily Mail is a right wing paper. However far-right it is not, this publication comes nowhere close to the retoric that spouts from the BNP, and I don't think many would dispute those fools being catagorised as far-right scum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Far-right ? Maybe you do n't know what far-right it , I do n't doubt that the Daily Mail is a right wing paper .
However far-right it is not , this publication comes nowhere close to the retoric that spouts from the BNP , and I do n't think many would dispute those fools being catagorised as far-right scum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Far-right?Maybe you don't know what far-right it, I don't doubt that the Daily Mail is a right wing paper.
However far-right it is not, this publication comes nowhere close to the retoric that spouts from the BNP, and I don't think many would dispute those fools being catagorised as far-right scum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318946</id>
	<title>Streisand effect?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259845920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it wrong that I'm curious as to what the editor posted to get himself in trouble? Seems like the Streisand effect might backfire on the girl if the Internet is as cruel as I think it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it wrong that I 'm curious as to what the editor posted to get himself in trouble ?
Seems like the Streisand effect might backfire on the girl if the Internet is as cruel as I think it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it wrong that I'm curious as to what the editor posted to get himself in trouble?
Seems like the Streisand effect might backfire on the girl if the Internet is as cruel as I think it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318974</id>
	<title>Jurisdiction?</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1259846040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can this order really be enforced?  What country's laws is Wikipedia bound by?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can this order really be enforced ?
What country 's laws is Wikipedia bound by ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can this order really be enforced?
What country's laws is Wikipedia bound by?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321642</id>
	<title>well yeah</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1259958660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>someday, assuming a more nuanced social skillset, you might have a child</p><p>in which case, the irrational desire to protect that child from the various dangerous scenarios of adult life will be felt in your own mind. and it is an irrational desire. much like the irrational desire to feed. or the irrational desire to fornicate. in other words: not so rational from a point of view of principles and concepts, but very rational from the point of view of the preservation of and continuation of life: take care of your children</p><p>biological imperatives trump all high minded concepts. principles and concepts work only when they aren't interfering with biological imperatives. as an example: every right, freedom, and sense of decency you hold dear and valuable in your mind is just one food riot away from being completely violated without any recourse to justice. no police, court system, or government body can remain coherent when those police, judges, and government bureaucrats are more busy with trying to procure some food. so pay attention to those biological imperatives, they matter a hell of a whole lot. ignore them at the peril of losing all progress we've ever made in human society</p><p>so if you have kids, you will understand that this impulse isn't so irrational after all, as there is a very real biological rational reason to protect your offspring from the real world until they are able enough physically and mentally to protect themselves: for species that have a small set of children, such as homo sapiens, evolution favors the survival rate of organisms that actively protect their offspring</p><p>all i'm saying is that "think of the children!" might be the butt of every slashdot joke, but it is also a "hysteria" that you need to make peace with and accept, because it is simply never, ever going away. because it actually makes a hell of a lot of sense, but from a different point of view, a point of view that trumps all other points of view</p><p>without children, all the arguments you could ever have about rights and freedoms won't matter one bit if there's no one here to inherit the society and the government you tried to improve. the health and well being of the generation that comes after you is all you leave in this world, on an individual and a societal level. so it really is of the highest importance that you do your best to protect them until they can fend for themselves</p><p>this simple, brutal logic defeats and overrules all other arguments you can possibly make. "think of the children" reigns supreme. deal with it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>someday , assuming a more nuanced social skillset , you might have a childin which case , the irrational desire to protect that child from the various dangerous scenarios of adult life will be felt in your own mind .
and it is an irrational desire .
much like the irrational desire to feed .
or the irrational desire to fornicate .
in other words : not so rational from a point of view of principles and concepts , but very rational from the point of view of the preservation of and continuation of life : take care of your childrenbiological imperatives trump all high minded concepts .
principles and concepts work only when they are n't interfering with biological imperatives .
as an example : every right , freedom , and sense of decency you hold dear and valuable in your mind is just one food riot away from being completely violated without any recourse to justice .
no police , court system , or government body can remain coherent when those police , judges , and government bureaucrats are more busy with trying to procure some food .
so pay attention to those biological imperatives , they matter a hell of a whole lot .
ignore them at the peril of losing all progress we 've ever made in human societyso if you have kids , you will understand that this impulse is n't so irrational after all , as there is a very real biological rational reason to protect your offspring from the real world until they are able enough physically and mentally to protect themselves : for species that have a small set of children , such as homo sapiens , evolution favors the survival rate of organisms that actively protect their offspringall i 'm saying is that " think of the children !
" might be the butt of every slashdot joke , but it is also a " hysteria " that you need to make peace with and accept , because it is simply never , ever going away .
because it actually makes a hell of a lot of sense , but from a different point of view , a point of view that trumps all other points of viewwithout children , all the arguments you could ever have about rights and freedoms wo n't matter one bit if there 's no one here to inherit the society and the government you tried to improve .
the health and well being of the generation that comes after you is all you leave in this world , on an individual and a societal level .
so it really is of the highest importance that you do your best to protect them until they can fend for themselvesthis simple , brutal logic defeats and overrules all other arguments you can possibly make .
" think of the children " reigns supreme .
deal with it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>someday, assuming a more nuanced social skillset, you might have a childin which case, the irrational desire to protect that child from the various dangerous scenarios of adult life will be felt in your own mind.
and it is an irrational desire.
much like the irrational desire to feed.
or the irrational desire to fornicate.
in other words: not so rational from a point of view of principles and concepts, but very rational from the point of view of the preservation of and continuation of life: take care of your childrenbiological imperatives trump all high minded concepts.
principles and concepts work only when they aren't interfering with biological imperatives.
as an example: every right, freedom, and sense of decency you hold dear and valuable in your mind is just one food riot away from being completely violated without any recourse to justice.
no police, court system, or government body can remain coherent when those police, judges, and government bureaucrats are more busy with trying to procure some food.
so pay attention to those biological imperatives, they matter a hell of a whole lot.
ignore them at the peril of losing all progress we've ever made in human societyso if you have kids, you will understand that this impulse isn't so irrational after all, as there is a very real biological rational reason to protect your offspring from the real world until they are able enough physically and mentally to protect themselves: for species that have a small set of children, such as homo sapiens, evolution favors the survival rate of organisms that actively protect their offspringall i'm saying is that "think of the children!
" might be the butt of every slashdot joke, but it is also a "hysteria" that you need to make peace with and accept, because it is simply never, ever going away.
because it actually makes a hell of a lot of sense, but from a different point of view, a point of view that trumps all other points of viewwithout children, all the arguments you could ever have about rights and freedoms won't matter one bit if there's no one here to inherit the society and the government you tried to improve.
the health and well being of the generation that comes after you is all you leave in this world, on an individual and a societal level.
so it really is of the highest importance that you do your best to protect them until they can fend for themselvesthis simple, brutal logic defeats and overrules all other arguments you can possibly make.
"think of the children" reigns supreme.
deal with it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322762</id>
	<title>Re:Whistle blowers don't involve people's children</title>
	<author>Cederic</author>
	<datestamp>1259935440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since ifwm's pithy and accurate post was modded to oblivion, allow me to respond.</p><p>Whistleblowers do not reveal the names of children involved by revealing the abuser.</p><p>An excellent recent example is the nursery worker recently arrested in the UK for abusing her wards. She was vilified for the original offence, but then attacked constantly by the media for days because she wouldn't reveal which children she'd abused.</p><p>The abuser was clearly known, but not the victims. (Yes, there's photographic evidence. No, I don't know why they can't identify the victims from the photos - could be that all 3 year olds look the same naked or that they didn't include the heads in the pictures, or something).</p><p>In UK law sexual abuse victims have an automatic right to anonymity. I think that's sensible and appropriate; I would personally extend the right to those accused of abuse to protect their reputations too - there are too many false accusations, which destroy peoples careers and family lives. Remove the anonymity at the point they are convicted of the crime, not the point at which someone (who remains anonymous) accuses them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since ifwm 's pithy and accurate post was modded to oblivion , allow me to respond.Whistleblowers do not reveal the names of children involved by revealing the abuser.An excellent recent example is the nursery worker recently arrested in the UK for abusing her wards .
She was vilified for the original offence , but then attacked constantly by the media for days because she would n't reveal which children she 'd abused.The abuser was clearly known , but not the victims .
( Yes , there 's photographic evidence .
No , I do n't know why they ca n't identify the victims from the photos - could be that all 3 year olds look the same naked or that they did n't include the heads in the pictures , or something ) .In UK law sexual abuse victims have an automatic right to anonymity .
I think that 's sensible and appropriate ; I would personally extend the right to those accused of abuse to protect their reputations too - there are too many false accusations , which destroy peoples careers and family lives .
Remove the anonymity at the point they are convicted of the crime , not the point at which someone ( who remains anonymous ) accuses them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since ifwm's pithy and accurate post was modded to oblivion, allow me to respond.Whistleblowers do not reveal the names of children involved by revealing the abuser.An excellent recent example is the nursery worker recently arrested in the UK for abusing her wards.
She was vilified for the original offence, but then attacked constantly by the media for days because she wouldn't reveal which children she'd abused.The abuser was clearly known, but not the victims.
(Yes, there's photographic evidence.
No, I don't know why they can't identify the victims from the photos - could be that all 3 year olds look the same naked or that they didn't include the heads in the pictures, or something).In UK law sexual abuse victims have an automatic right to anonymity.
I think that's sensible and appropriate; I would personally extend the right to those accused of abuse to protect their reputations too - there are too many false accusations, which destroy peoples careers and family lives.
Remove the anonymity at the point they are convicted of the crime, not the point at which someone (who remains anonymous) accuses them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320036</id>
	<title>Re:Tor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259853420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well IIRC Wikipedia had a policy not to let IPs of proxy servers and Tor IPs have editing abilities, but they cannot block all of them as not all of them are "known". I know because I tested it out one time and I was blocked from editing and had an error message that says Proxy/Tor IP addresses are blocked due to abuse. Now they may have lifted the block since then, but I think Wikipedia wants to know who is editing their articles so that a person cannot edit their own entry if they are notable enough to be listed and organizations cannot edit their own articles on their organization and many tried to get around that via proxy servers and Tor, and thus Wikipedia blocked those IPs from editing.</p><p>But I could be wrong, someone try it and see what happens.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well IIRC Wikipedia had a policy not to let IPs of proxy servers and Tor IPs have editing abilities , but they can not block all of them as not all of them are " known " .
I know because I tested it out one time and I was blocked from editing and had an error message that says Proxy/Tor IP addresses are blocked due to abuse .
Now they may have lifted the block since then , but I think Wikipedia wants to know who is editing their articles so that a person can not edit their own entry if they are notable enough to be listed and organizations can not edit their own articles on their organization and many tried to get around that via proxy servers and Tor , and thus Wikipedia blocked those IPs from editing.But I could be wrong , someone try it and see what happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well IIRC Wikipedia had a policy not to let IPs of proxy servers and Tor IPs have editing abilities, but they cannot block all of them as not all of them are "known".
I know because I tested it out one time and I was blocked from editing and had an error message that says Proxy/Tor IP addresses are blocked due to abuse.
Now they may have lifted the block since then, but I think Wikipedia wants to know who is editing their articles so that a person cannot edit their own entry if they are notable enough to be listed and organizations cannot edit their own articles on their organization and many tried to get around that via proxy servers and Tor, and thus Wikipedia blocked those IPs from editing.But I could be wrong, someone try it and see what happens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320396</id>
	<title>UK court, not US, so...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259856900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when a UK court can force a company/non profit/whatever doing business in a foreign country to reveal the identity of a user?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when a UK court can force a company/non profit/whatever doing business in a foreign country to reveal the identity of a user ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when a UK court can force a company/non profit/whatever doing business in a foreign country to reveal the identity of a user?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319108</id>
	<title>Re:Jurisdiction?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259846640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can this order really be enforced?  What country's laws is Wikipedia bound by?</p></div><p>If any of its officers want to ever travel to the UK, then yes, it can be enforced.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can this order really be enforced ?
What country 's laws is Wikipedia bound by ? If any of its officers want to ever travel to the UK , then yes , it can be enforced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can this order really be enforced?
What country's laws is Wikipedia bound by?If any of its officers want to ever travel to the UK, then yes, it can be enforced.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319590</id>
	<title>Re:it's not whistleblowing, its blackmail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259850060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it somehow seems appropriate that the blackmailer choose wikipedia as the means to release the information. I guess the folks at Britannica weren't interested.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it somehow seems appropriate that the blackmailer choose wikipedia as the means to release the information .
I guess the folks at Britannica were n't interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it somehow seems appropriate that the blackmailer choose wikipedia as the means to release the information.
I guess the folks at Britannica weren't interested.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321166</id>
	<title>Re:Tor</title>
	<author>Fnord666</author>
	<datestamp>1259865240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Forget TOR. What if he used a library, coffee shop, rest stop, or other access point?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Well, if it's in the UK then there are probably 4 or 5 different CCTV tapes of everyone using that access point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget TOR .
What if he used a library , coffee shop , rest stop , or other access point ?
Well , if it 's in the UK then there are probably 4 or 5 different CCTV tapes of everyone using that access point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget TOR.
What if he used a library, coffee shop, rest stop, or other access point?
Well, if it's in the UK then there are probably 4 or 5 different CCTV tapes of everyone using that access point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322200</id>
	<title>Re:WARNING - DAILY FAIL</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1259925480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's posts like yours that make me wish Slashdot didn't ban modding in the same story as you post in.  You're an idiot that always copy/pastes this trash and gets modded up by your zealot supporters, and the Daily Mail is a decent publication that at least occasionally publishes a decent story.  This is one of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's posts like yours that make me wish Slashdot did n't ban modding in the same story as you post in .
You 're an idiot that always copy/pastes this trash and gets modded up by your zealot supporters , and the Daily Mail is a decent publication that at least occasionally publishes a decent story .
This is one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's posts like yours that make me wish Slashdot didn't ban modding in the same story as you post in.
You're an idiot that always copy/pastes this trash and gets modded up by your zealot supporters, and the Daily Mail is a decent publication that at least occasionally publishes a decent story.
This is one of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319042</id>
	<title>Re:Jurisdiction?</title>
	<author>FunPika</author>
	<datestamp>1259846340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikipedia is run by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is based in the U.S, so I believe that they are bound by U.S law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia is run by the Wikimedia Foundation , which is based in the U.S , so I believe that they are bound by U.S law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia is run by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is based in the U.S, so I believe that they are bound by U.S law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321486</id>
	<title>Re:Whistle blowers don't involve people's children</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259869500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're an idiot. We're <b>all</b> someone's children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're an idiot .
We 're all someone 's children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're an idiot.
We're all someone's children.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30323342</id>
	<title>Re:Tor</title>
	<author>xouumalperxe</author>
	<datestamp>1259940060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then the investigation follows the trail from there. Sheesh, it's not as though following a new lead when an old one runs dry is a novel concept!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then the investigation follows the trail from there .
Sheesh , it 's not as though following a new lead when an old one runs dry is a novel concept !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then the investigation follows the trail from there.
Sheesh, it's not as though following a new lead when an old one runs dry is a novel concept!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318856</id>
	<title>Wow...</title>
	<author>nog\_lorp</author>
	<datestamp>1259845380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, someone anonymously leaks information about shady financial dealing by a businesswoman, and then sends a letter indicating that the press was notified of these dealings. Apparently no request for payoff has been made. Sounds like a whistle blower not a blackmailer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , someone anonymously leaks information about shady financial dealing by a businesswoman , and then sends a letter indicating that the press was notified of these dealings .
Apparently no request for payoff has been made .
Sounds like a whistle blower not a blackmailer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, someone anonymously leaks information about shady financial dealing by a businesswoman, and then sends a letter indicating that the press was notified of these dealings.
Apparently no request for payoff has been made.
Sounds like a whistle blower not a blackmailer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30329348</id>
	<title>Re:Tor</title>
	<author>jakebw</author>
	<datestamp>1259923320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, they use <a href="http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:TorBlock" title="mediawiki.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:TorBlock</a> [mediawiki.org].  There is a client-side bot that blocks open proxies as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , they use http : //www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension : TorBlock [ mediawiki.org ] .
There is a client-side bot that blocks open proxies as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, they use http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:TorBlock [mediawiki.org].
There is a client-side bot that blocks open proxies as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320640</id>
	<title>Re:slashhordes:</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1259858880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"And what if it isn't blackmail?"</i>
<br> <br>
Presumably "some woman" would be charged with falsifying evidence. You and I do not have the ability to accurately judge the claim for ouselves because we are operating in an information vacum. You are ignoring the fact a judge has read the letter and we haven't. Their job is to judge the claims of "some woman", hence the name judge.
<br> <br>
<i>If there was any blackmail, there is not any current legal action regarding it.</i>
<br>
Well duh, who are the going to charge, 'anonomous of no fixed IP'?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" And what if it is n't blackmail ?
" Presumably " some woman " would be charged with falsifying evidence .
You and I do not have the ability to accurately judge the claim for ouselves because we are operating in an information vacum .
You are ignoring the fact a judge has read the letter and we have n't .
Their job is to judge the claims of " some woman " , hence the name judge .
If there was any blackmail , there is not any current legal action regarding it .
Well duh , who are the going to charge , 'anonomous of no fixed IP ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And what if it isn't blackmail?
"
 
Presumably "some woman" would be charged with falsifying evidence.
You and I do not have the ability to accurately judge the claim for ouselves because we are operating in an information vacum.
You are ignoring the fact a judge has read the letter and we haven't.
Their job is to judge the claims of "some woman", hence the name judge.
If there was any blackmail, there is not any current legal action regarding it.
Well duh, who are the going to charge, 'anonomous of no fixed IP'?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319810</id>
	<title>Re:Do you believe everything someone tells you?</title>
	<author>Raisey-raison</author>
	<datestamp>1259851800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the problem with where you balance free speech versus everything else. In the USA with the exception of national security, judges err on the side of free speech. In the EU it's on whatever is opposing it. eg blackmail., libel, hate speech, offensive speech, privacy etc. And in this case if the information is publicly available and is accurate then IMHO it's a great shame that it's been censored. I also think that the crime for blackmail should be to make the threat but NOT to publicize already public information.</p><p>Secondly it seems this is just another example of the law online going down to the lowest common denominator. What is the point of having the first amendment in the USA if some foreign court can gut it when they see fit (and Wikipedia is incorporated in the USA)? Part of the point of living in the USA is that you trade in some security (eg high gini coefficient, little welfare state compared to Europe) and in return you get more liberty (both personal and financial). Here though you get screwed both ways - getting the stringencies of both systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the problem with where you balance free speech versus everything else .
In the USA with the exception of national security , judges err on the side of free speech .
In the EU it 's on whatever is opposing it .
eg blackmail. , libel , hate speech , offensive speech , privacy etc .
And in this case if the information is publicly available and is accurate then IMHO it 's a great shame that it 's been censored .
I also think that the crime for blackmail should be to make the threat but NOT to publicize already public information.Secondly it seems this is just another example of the law online going down to the lowest common denominator .
What is the point of having the first amendment in the USA if some foreign court can gut it when they see fit ( and Wikipedia is incorporated in the USA ) ?
Part of the point of living in the USA is that you trade in some security ( eg high gini coefficient , little welfare state compared to Europe ) and in return you get more liberty ( both personal and financial ) .
Here though you get screwed both ways - getting the stringencies of both systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the problem with where you balance free speech versus everything else.
In the USA with the exception of national security, judges err on the side of free speech.
In the EU it's on whatever is opposing it.
eg blackmail., libel, hate speech, offensive speech, privacy etc.
And in this case if the information is publicly available and is accurate then IMHO it's a great shame that it's been censored.
I also think that the crime for blackmail should be to make the threat but NOT to publicize already public information.Secondly it seems this is just another example of the law online going down to the lowest common denominator.
What is the point of having the first amendment in the USA if some foreign court can gut it when they see fit (and Wikipedia is incorporated in the USA)?
Part of the point of living in the USA is that you trade in some security (eg high gini coefficient, little welfare state compared to Europe) and in return you get more liberty (both personal and financial).
Here though you get screwed both ways - getting the stringencies of both systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318846</id>
	<title>Sarah Palin?</title>
	<author>Slutticus</author>
	<datestamp>1259845320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Was the posted info true?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was the posted info true ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was the posted info true?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320654</id>
	<title>Re:Whistle blowers don't involve people's children</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1259858940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Depends. I once wrote to George Bush Sr a letter threatening to blow the
whistle to the whole world that George Bush Jr is a good for nothing drunk,
unless he sent me one million dollars. I never got a reply, though...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends .
I once wrote to George Bush Sr a letter threatening to blow the whistle to the whole world that George Bush Jr is a good for nothing drunk , unless he sent me one million dollars .
I never got a reply , though.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends.
I once wrote to George Bush Sr a letter threatening to blow the
whistle to the whole world that George Bush Jr is a good for nothing drunk,
unless he sent me one million dollars.
I never got a reply, though...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320712</id>
	<title>Re:Tor</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1259859540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget TOR. What if he used a library, coffee shop, rest stop, or other access point?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget TOR .
What if he used a library , coffee shop , rest stop , or other access point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget TOR.
What if he used a library, coffee shop, rest stop, or other access point?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319194</id>
	<title>dubious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259847120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>European free speech and whistle-blower protections are too limited, and the UK has been trying to impose its rules on other countries for a while.  Fortunately, they don't have jurisdiction over Wikipedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>European free speech and whistle-blower protections are too limited , and the UK has been trying to impose its rules on other countries for a while .
Fortunately , they do n't have jurisdiction over Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>European free speech and whistle-blower protections are too limited, and the UK has been trying to impose its rules on other countries for a while.
Fortunately, they don't have jurisdiction over Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319380</id>
	<title>Re:IP address released - oh my</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1259848320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However, if the IP address goes back to an already suspected person, who has special interest in the situation, it will be hard for THEM to argue it was some random spammer controlling their computer with a zombie bot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , if the IP address goes back to an already suspected person , who has special interest in the situation , it will be hard for THEM to argue it was some random spammer controlling their computer with a zombie bot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, if the IP address goes back to an already suspected person, who has special interest in the situation, it will be hard for THEM to argue it was some random spammer controlling their computer with a zombie bot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319310</id>
	<title>Think of the children</title>
	<author>ickleberry</author>
	<datestamp>1259847840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whenever there is a child involved all notions of common sense and rational thinking go out the nearest window. <br> <br>

No law is too draconian, too invasive of one's privacy if there is even<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.1 of a \% chance that it will ever prevent a child from having to experience the smallest noticeable amount of pain<br> <br>

I cant help but think that if Wikipedia don't comply and donate 100,000 GBP to some children's charity for their 'sin' in merely being involved in this whole thing they will be made out to be the bad ones and accused of sheltering paedophiles, rapists and other undesirables.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever there is a child involved all notions of common sense and rational thinking go out the nearest window .
No law is too draconian , too invasive of one 's privacy if there is even .1 of a \ % chance that it will ever prevent a child from having to experience the smallest noticeable amount of pain I cant help but think that if Wikipedia do n't comply and donate 100,000 GBP to some children 's charity for their 'sin ' in merely being involved in this whole thing they will be made out to be the bad ones and accused of sheltering paedophiles , rapists and other undesirables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever there is a child involved all notions of common sense and rational thinking go out the nearest window.
No law is too draconian, too invasive of one's privacy if there is even .1 of a \% chance that it will ever prevent a child from having to experience the smallest noticeable amount of pain 

I cant help but think that if Wikipedia don't comply and donate 100,000 GBP to some children's charity for their 'sin' in merely being involved in this whole thing they will be made out to be the bad ones and accused of sheltering paedophiles, rapists and other undesirables.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319538</id>
	<title>Re:IP address released - oh my</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259849640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BUT BUT, the article clearly states:</p><p>"Wikipedia does not store the names of those writing or editing its entries - but it does keep the Internet Protocol (IP) address, which identifies every computer on the Internet."</p><p>It identifies every computer!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BUT BUT , the article clearly states : " Wikipedia does not store the names of those writing or editing its entries - but it does keep the Internet Protocol ( IP ) address , which identifies every computer on the Internet .
" It identifies every computer !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BUT BUT, the article clearly states:"Wikipedia does not store the names of those writing or editing its entries - but it does keep the Internet Protocol (IP) address, which identifies every computer on the Internet.
"It identifies every computer!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320276</id>
	<title>well then the court can be held accountable</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1259855760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if the issue is just that someone doesn't want information out there they don't like, then wikipedia is being violated by the court system for the sake of an inflamed ego rather than an actual case of criminality. in which case, one would think then that this is an actual criminal case. if its not a criminal case, it soon will be, with the court system as the defendant and wikipedia as the plaintiff</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if the issue is just that someone does n't want information out there they do n't like , then wikipedia is being violated by the court system for the sake of an inflamed ego rather than an actual case of criminality .
in which case , one would think then that this is an actual criminal case .
if its not a criminal case , it soon will be , with the court system as the defendant and wikipedia as the plaintiff</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if the issue is just that someone doesn't want information out there they don't like, then wikipedia is being violated by the court system for the sake of an inflamed ego rather than an actual case of criminality.
in which case, one would think then that this is an actual criminal case.
if its not a criminal case, it soon will be, with the court system as the defendant and wikipedia as the plaintiff</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321766</id>
	<title>Re:Tor</title>
	<author>1s44c</author>
	<datestamp>1259917680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What if he/she used Tor?</p></div><p>Try editing wikipedia though TOR. They block every exit node they know about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if he/she used Tor ? Try editing wikipedia though TOR .
They block every exit node they know about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if he/she used Tor?Try editing wikipedia though TOR.
They block every exit node they know about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319184</id>
	<title>Wikipedia complies?</title>
	<author>genjix</author>
	<datestamp>1259847060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would happen should Wikipedia hand over false information? Surely the courts wouldn't know any better.</p><p>Can Wikipedia claim it's doesn't keep IP info?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would happen should Wikipedia hand over false information ?
Surely the courts would n't know any better.Can Wikipedia claim it 's does n't keep IP info ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would happen should Wikipedia hand over false information?
Surely the courts wouldn't know any better.Can Wikipedia claim it's doesn't keep IP info?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319282</id>
	<title>What about judges in other countries?</title>
	<author>BlueCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1259847600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not saying that there shouldn't be legal oversight.  The problem is which is the authority?</p><p>When are we going to have the first incident of someone paying off a third world judge to obtain private information?</p><p>Where is the Switzerland of the internet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not saying that there should n't be legal oversight .
The problem is which is the authority ? When are we going to have the first incident of someone paying off a third world judge to obtain private information ? Where is the Switzerland of the internet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not saying that there shouldn't be legal oversight.
The problem is which is the authority?When are we going to have the first incident of someone paying off a third world judge to obtain private information?Where is the Switzerland of the internet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319748</id>
	<title>What's exactly the problem?</title>
	<author>vegetasaiyajin</author>
	<datestamp>1259851260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia editions are not anonymous</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia editions are not anonymous</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia editions are not anonymous</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321078</id>
	<title>Re:Tor</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1259864220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
No they don't.  One or two exit node(s) have or had a name like that, once upon a time.
It's definitely not true that all (or even that most) do.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No they do n't .
One or two exit node ( s ) have or had a name like that , once upon a time .
It 's definitely not true that all ( or even that most ) do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
No they don't.
One or two exit node(s) have or had a name like that, once upon a time.
It's definitely not true that all (or even that most) do.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320338</id>
	<title>Re:Tor</title>
	<author>Xeriar</author>
	<datestamp>1259856360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tor exit nodes have a hostname that begins with tor-exit - and Wikipedia blocks on that. Most open proxies can feasibly be detected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tor exit nodes have a hostname that begins with tor-exit - and Wikipedia blocks on that .
Most open proxies can feasibly be detected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tor exit nodes have a hostname that begins with tor-exit - and Wikipedia blocks on that.
Most open proxies can feasibly be detected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319978</id>
	<title>Re:Jurisdiction?</title>
	<author>geniice</author>
	<datestamp>1259853000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p># In reply, lawyers for the Respondent made a number of preliminary observations. First they addressed the request made on behalf of the Applicants that the amendment be deleted. They stated that the Respondent is not the publisher or writer of the article relating to the mother, or of the amendment. They said they would refer the request for the deletion of the archived version of the amendment to "the community of volunteer editors, one or more of whom may attempt to address your concerns". They referred to the immunity they claim under section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act (1996) from most civil liability for content they did not originate or develop. They stated that the Respondent does not conduct operations within the jurisdiction of this court. Nevertheless, they stated that they were happy to forward the Applicants' request to their volunteer community.</p><p># The amendment was removed promptly following the request made on behalf of the Applicants.</p><p># In their letter of 19 November lawyers for the Respondent next addressed the Applicants' request for the IP information. They stated that it is the policy of the Respondent that such data be released in response to a valid sub poena or equivalent compulsory legal process. They added:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "Without waiving our insistence that no court in the United Kingdom has proper jurisdiction over us as a foreign entity, we nevertheless are willing to comply with a properly issued court order narrowly limited to the material you ask for in your letter".</p><p><a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html" title="bailii.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html</a> [bailii.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext># In reply , lawyers for the Respondent made a number of preliminary observations .
First they addressed the request made on behalf of the Applicants that the amendment be deleted .
They stated that the Respondent is not the publisher or writer of the article relating to the mother , or of the amendment .
They said they would refer the request for the deletion of the archived version of the amendment to " the community of volunteer editors , one or more of whom may attempt to address your concerns " .
They referred to the immunity they claim under section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act ( 1996 ) from most civil liability for content they did not originate or develop .
They stated that the Respondent does not conduct operations within the jurisdiction of this court .
Nevertheless , they stated that they were happy to forward the Applicants ' request to their volunteer community. # The amendment was removed promptly following the request made on behalf of the Applicants. # In their letter of 19 November lawyers for the Respondent next addressed the Applicants ' request for the IP information .
They stated that it is the policy of the Respondent that such data be released in response to a valid sub poena or equivalent compulsory legal process .
They added :         " Without waiving our insistence that no court in the United Kingdom has proper jurisdiction over us as a foreign entity , we nevertheless are willing to comply with a properly issued court order narrowly limited to the material you ask for in your letter " .http : //www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html [ bailii.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext># In reply, lawyers for the Respondent made a number of preliminary observations.
First they addressed the request made on behalf of the Applicants that the amendment be deleted.
They stated that the Respondent is not the publisher or writer of the article relating to the mother, or of the amendment.
They said they would refer the request for the deletion of the archived version of the amendment to "the community of volunteer editors, one or more of whom may attempt to address your concerns".
They referred to the immunity they claim under section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act (1996) from most civil liability for content they did not originate or develop.
They stated that the Respondent does not conduct operations within the jurisdiction of this court.
Nevertheless, they stated that they were happy to forward the Applicants' request to their volunteer community.# The amendment was removed promptly following the request made on behalf of the Applicants.# In their letter of 19 November lawyers for the Respondent next addressed the Applicants' request for the IP information.
They stated that it is the policy of the Respondent that such data be released in response to a valid sub poena or equivalent compulsory legal process.
They added:
        "Without waiving our insistence that no court in the United Kingdom has proper jurisdiction over us as a foreign entity, we nevertheless are willing to comply with a properly issued court order narrowly limited to the material you ask for in your letter".http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html [bailii.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321690</id>
	<title>Re:slashhordes:</title>
	<author>arkhan\_jg</author>
	<datestamp>1259959620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We don't have a DA filing charges and issuing a warrant.</i></p><p>No, because this is the British High Court of Justice, which deal with important and high profile cases. The judge is a senior one with many years of experience, and he issues a court order instead of a warrant. She requested the editor's IP from wikipedia; wikipedia refused, but said "Without waiving our insistence that no court in the United Kingdom has proper jurisdiction over us as a foreign entity, we nevertheless are willing to comply with a properly issued court order narrowly limited to the material you ask for in your letter".</p><p>So she's gone to the High Court to get the information, on the basis that the user who posted the article has a case to answer for, and the Judge agreed. If he didn't think there was a case to answer for, he wouldn't have issued the order. Whether that ends up being a civil case or a criminal case handled by the CPS likely depends upon who that IP belongs to. She believes it will belong to someone to she already has a dispute with, and if so (presuming she gets another court order for the ISP to hand over subscriber details for that IP) then there's quite possibly enough evidence there for the CPS to become interested, and the judge does think there's enough evidence for a blackmail prosecution.</p><p>But on the larger point - are you saying that a civil case appellant should never be able to gain user information from a 3rd party on the basis that that user has a case to answer for? Because that's an awfully restrictive setup, where only criminal proceedings can gather information from 3rd parties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't have a DA filing charges and issuing a warrant.No , because this is the British High Court of Justice , which deal with important and high profile cases .
The judge is a senior one with many years of experience , and he issues a court order instead of a warrant .
She requested the editor 's IP from wikipedia ; wikipedia refused , but said " Without waiving our insistence that no court in the United Kingdom has proper jurisdiction over us as a foreign entity , we nevertheless are willing to comply with a properly issued court order narrowly limited to the material you ask for in your letter " .So she 's gone to the High Court to get the information , on the basis that the user who posted the article has a case to answer for , and the Judge agreed .
If he did n't think there was a case to answer for , he would n't have issued the order .
Whether that ends up being a civil case or a criminal case handled by the CPS likely depends upon who that IP belongs to .
She believes it will belong to someone to she already has a dispute with , and if so ( presuming she gets another court order for the ISP to hand over subscriber details for that IP ) then there 's quite possibly enough evidence there for the CPS to become interested , and the judge does think there 's enough evidence for a blackmail prosecution.But on the larger point - are you saying that a civil case appellant should never be able to gain user information from a 3rd party on the basis that that user has a case to answer for ?
Because that 's an awfully restrictive setup , where only criminal proceedings can gather information from 3rd parties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't have a DA filing charges and issuing a warrant.No, because this is the British High Court of Justice, which deal with important and high profile cases.
The judge is a senior one with many years of experience, and he issues a court order instead of a warrant.
She requested the editor's IP from wikipedia; wikipedia refused, but said "Without waiving our insistence that no court in the United Kingdom has proper jurisdiction over us as a foreign entity, we nevertheless are willing to comply with a properly issued court order narrowly limited to the material you ask for in your letter".So she's gone to the High Court to get the information, on the basis that the user who posted the article has a case to answer for, and the Judge agreed.
If he didn't think there was a case to answer for, he wouldn't have issued the order.
Whether that ends up being a civil case or a criminal case handled by the CPS likely depends upon who that IP belongs to.
She believes it will belong to someone to she already has a dispute with, and if so (presuming she gets another court order for the ISP to hand over subscriber details for that IP) then there's quite possibly enough evidence there for the CPS to become interested, and the judge does think there's enough evidence for a blackmail prosecution.But on the larger point - are you saying that a civil case appellant should never be able to gain user information from a 3rd party on the basis that that user has a case to answer for?
Because that's an awfully restrictive setup, where only criminal proceedings can gather information from 3rd parties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322860</id>
	<title>Re:Jurisdiction?</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1259936400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>However, if you RTFA it says the Wiki Foundation has already caved in and agreed to reveal the IP address.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
As a crime has been committed, the Wiki Foundation have at least a moral obligation to help in catching the criminal, surely?  Say it had been someone responsible for a murder, would you still expect them not to co-operate?
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , if you RTFA it says the Wiki Foundation has already caved in and agreed to reveal the IP address .
As a crime has been committed , the Wiki Foundation have at least a moral obligation to help in catching the criminal , surely ?
Say it had been someone responsible for a murder , would you still expect them not to co-operate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, if you RTFA it says the Wiki Foundation has already caved in and agreed to reveal the IP address.
As a crime has been committed, the Wiki Foundation have at least a moral obligation to help in catching the criminal, surely?
Say it had been someone responsible for a murder, would you still expect them not to co-operate?

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319110</id>
	<title>Re:Jurisdiction?</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1259846640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why wouldn't the Wikipedia comply/help even if they didn't legally have to?  I don't think there's any compelling reason to protect the anonymity of someone who's blackmailing someone else from your website.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would n't the Wikipedia comply/help even if they did n't legally have to ?
I do n't think there 's any compelling reason to protect the anonymity of someone who 's blackmailing someone else from your website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why wouldn't the Wikipedia comply/help even if they didn't legally have to?
I don't think there's any compelling reason to protect the anonymity of someone who's blackmailing someone else from your website.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320868</id>
	<title>Re:Whistle blowers don't involve people's children</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1259861760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nonsense. When the whistleblower is exposing incest or certain types of child abuse, the whistleblower automatically reveals the names of children involved by revealing the abuser. And sometimes a whistleblower or anonymously protected exposition is necessary because the guilty person cannot or will not be pursued by law enforcement, as occurred with the Catholic priests finally convicted of child harassment in the strange cases that led to Cardinal Bernard Law being taken off the short list for the next Pope.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nonsense .
When the whistleblower is exposing incest or certain types of child abuse , the whistleblower automatically reveals the names of children involved by revealing the abuser .
And sometimes a whistleblower or anonymously protected exposition is necessary because the guilty person can not or will not be pursued by law enforcement , as occurred with the Catholic priests finally convicted of child harassment in the strange cases that led to Cardinal Bernard Law being taken off the short list for the next Pope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nonsense.
When the whistleblower is exposing incest or certain types of child abuse, the whistleblower automatically reveals the names of children involved by revealing the abuser.
And sometimes a whistleblower or anonymously protected exposition is necessary because the guilty person cannot or will not be pursued by law enforcement, as occurred with the Catholic priests finally convicted of child harassment in the strange cases that led to Cardinal Bernard Law being taken off the short list for the next Pope.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318984</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319414</id>
	<title>WARNING - DAILY FAIL</title>
	<author>Gordonjcp</author>
	<datestamp>1259848500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This news article was taken from the Daily Mail, a far-right tabloid newspaper which contains more foaming-at-the-mouth madness than a month of Fox News.  This story was in all probability sandwiched between an article about how the eeevil not-quite-as-right-wing government are spending *your* taxes on a Christian Vegan Lesbian Holistic Nicaraguan Islamic Learning-impaired Whale-Yoga Ashram, and how the Fish-People really run the BBC which is why they showed eeeevil Nick Griffin and not an episode of Last of the Summer Wine.</p><p>Believe pretty much any article you read on Wikipedia before you believe the Daily Mail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This news article was taken from the Daily Mail , a far-right tabloid newspaper which contains more foaming-at-the-mouth madness than a month of Fox News .
This story was in all probability sandwiched between an article about how the eeevil not-quite-as-right-wing government are spending * your * taxes on a Christian Vegan Lesbian Holistic Nicaraguan Islamic Learning-impaired Whale-Yoga Ashram , and how the Fish-People really run the BBC which is why they showed eeeevil Nick Griffin and not an episode of Last of the Summer Wine.Believe pretty much any article you read on Wikipedia before you believe the Daily Mail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This news article was taken from the Daily Mail, a far-right tabloid newspaper which contains more foaming-at-the-mouth madness than a month of Fox News.
This story was in all probability sandwiched between an article about how the eeevil not-quite-as-right-wing government are spending *your* taxes on a Christian Vegan Lesbian Holistic Nicaraguan Islamic Learning-impaired Whale-Yoga Ashram, and how the Fish-People really run the BBC which is why they showed eeeevil Nick Griffin and not an episode of Last of the Summer Wine.Believe pretty much any article you read on Wikipedia before you believe the Daily Mail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319280</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259847600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And judges are never wrong.  These details shouldn't be secret if the court is involved it should be a matter of public record.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And judges are never wrong .
These details should n't be secret if the court is involved it should be a matter of public record .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And judges are never wrong.
These details shouldn't be secret if the court is involved it should be a matter of public record.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322892</id>
	<title>Re:slashhordes:</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1259936700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>however, i feel the need to say it, because underneath this story we will see a lot of howling of the government violating people's rights. when the fact is, if you blackmail someone, you HAVE to have your rights violated, for the sake of a functioning free society, actual or theoretical</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Well said, the way some people go on about rights and free speech on slashdot, you'd think everyone had some God-given right to act entirely without thought of the consequences, or fear of any comeback on their actions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>however , i feel the need to say it , because underneath this story we will see a lot of howling of the government violating people 's rights .
when the fact is , if you blackmail someone , you HAVE to have your rights violated , for the sake of a functioning free society , actual or theoretical Well said , the way some people go on about rights and free speech on slashdot , you 'd think everyone had some God-given right to act entirely without thought of the consequences , or fear of any comeback on their actions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>however, i feel the need to say it, because underneath this story we will see a lot of howling of the government violating people's rights.
when the fact is, if you blackmail someone, you HAVE to have your rights violated, for the sake of a functioning free society, actual or theoretical

Well said, the way some people go on about rights and free speech on slashdot, you'd think everyone had some God-given right to act entirely without thought of the consequences, or fear of any comeback on their actions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319476</id>
	<title>Re:Jurisdiction?</title>
	<author>owlnation</author>
	<datestamp>1259849100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Can this order really be enforced? What country's laws is Wikipedia bound by?</p></div></blockquote><p>

The order can't be enforced, as the Wiki Foundation is based in Florida. However, if you RTFA it says the Wiki Foundation has already caved in and agreed to reveal the IP address.<br> <br>

Which is great news for anyone in somewhere like China "anonymously" editing Wikipedia. Doing so could easily cost you your life if it's The Wiki Foundation's whim to expose you to your Government that day. <br> <br>

There's at least some possibility that this isn't a blackmailer but a whistleblower. Just another reason to question the practices of what goes on in the Wiki Foundation. Just another potential blow to truth at the hands of Wikipedia.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can this order really be enforced ?
What country 's laws is Wikipedia bound by ?
The order ca n't be enforced , as the Wiki Foundation is based in Florida .
However , if you RTFA it says the Wiki Foundation has already caved in and agreed to reveal the IP address .
Which is great news for anyone in somewhere like China " anonymously " editing Wikipedia .
Doing so could easily cost you your life if it 's The Wiki Foundation 's whim to expose you to your Government that day .
There 's at least some possibility that this is n't a blackmailer but a whistleblower .
Just another reason to question the practices of what goes on in the Wiki Foundation .
Just another potential blow to truth at the hands of Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can this order really be enforced?
What country's laws is Wikipedia bound by?
The order can't be enforced, as the Wiki Foundation is based in Florida.
However, if you RTFA it says the Wiki Foundation has already caved in and agreed to reveal the IP address.
Which is great news for anyone in somewhere like China "anonymously" editing Wikipedia.
Doing so could easily cost you your life if it's The Wiki Foundation's whim to expose you to your Government that day.
There's at least some possibility that this isn't a blackmailer but a whistleblower.
Just another reason to question the practices of what goes on in the Wiki Foundation.
Just another potential blow to truth at the hands of Wikipedia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318974</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319662</id>
	<title>Re:WARNING - DAILY FAIL</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1259850600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the comments said something to the effect of "I smell a scam, I just can't put my finger on it".</p><p>I think it's simple enough:</p><p>1) vandalize your own Wikipidia page<br>2) scream "blackmail"<br>3) blame someone with deep pockets or that you have a grudge against<br>4)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>5) profit!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the comments said something to the effect of " I smell a scam , I just ca n't put my finger on it " .I think it 's simple enough : 1 ) vandalize your own Wikipidia page2 ) scream " blackmail " 3 ) blame someone with deep pockets or that you have a grudge against4 ) ...5 ) profit !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the comments said something to the effect of "I smell a scam, I just can't put my finger on it".I think it's simple enough:1) vandalize your own Wikipidia page2) scream "blackmail"3) blame someone with deep pockets or that you have a grudge against4) ...5) profit!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320952</id>
	<title>Re:Tor</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1259862600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's only for non-logged-in editing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's only for non-logged-in editing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's only for non-logged-in editing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319206</id>
	<title>IP address released - oh my</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1259847180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they have the ip address. Big whoop.   It doesn't reveal WHO posted, just the modem that was used.</p><p>Could have been a wifi user out at the street corner, a virus.. someone broke into the home and posted..  An IP in a vacuum isn't evidence.. its a suggestion..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they have the ip address .
Big whoop .
It does n't reveal WHO posted , just the modem that was used.Could have been a wifi user out at the street corner , a virus.. someone broke into the home and posted.. An IP in a vacuum is n't evidence.. its a suggestion. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they have the ip address.
Big whoop.
It doesn't reveal WHO posted, just the modem that was used.Could have been a wifi user out at the street corner, a virus.. someone broke into the home and posted..  An IP in a vacuum isn't evidence.. its a suggestion..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322068</id>
	<title>Re:Think of the children</title>
	<author>synoniem</author>
	<datestamp>1259922420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whenever someone is sending threatening letter with or without a child involved it is blackmail. And everybody does have the right to display the writer of such letter. So this has nothing to do with 'think of the children'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever someone is sending threatening letter with or without a child involved it is blackmail .
And everybody does have the right to display the writer of such letter .
So this has nothing to do with 'think of the children' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever someone is sending threatening letter with or without a child involved it is blackmail.
And everybody does have the right to display the writer of such letter.
So this has nothing to do with 'think of the children'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322900</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia complies?</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1259936820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What would happen should Wikipedia hand over false information? Surely the courts wouldn't know any better.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Perhaps their image might be tarnished and people given the impression that they enjoy protecting blackmailers?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What would happen should Wikipedia hand over false information ?
Surely the courts would n't know any better .
Perhaps their image might be tarnished and people given the impression that they enjoy protecting blackmailers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would happen should Wikipedia hand over false information?
Surely the courts wouldn't know any better.
Perhaps their image might be tarnished and people given the impression that they enjoy protecting blackmailers?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319342</id>
	<title>Re:IP address released - oh my</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259848020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PHEW.</p><p>I thought IP address meant Internet Person address and was a form of government issued identifiers! Thank Dog I have nurb432 here to inform me of how the real world works!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PHEW.I thought IP address meant Internet Person address and was a form of government issued identifiers !
Thank Dog I have nurb432 here to inform me of how the real world works !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PHEW.I thought IP address meant Internet Person address and was a form of government issued identifiers!
Thank Dog I have nurb432 here to inform me of how the real world works!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319588</id>
	<title>Re:Do you believe everything someone tells you?</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1259850000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You missed 2.5) Judge looks at the post and all the other evidence offered by the plaintiff and decides if there is sufficient likelihood that the plaintiff would prevail to justify ordering the identity to be revealed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You missed 2.5 ) Judge looks at the post and all the other evidence offered by the plaintiff and decides if there is sufficient likelihood that the plaintiff would prevail to justify ordering the identity to be revealed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You missed 2.5) Judge looks at the post and all the other evidence offered by the plaintiff and decides if there is sufficient likelihood that the plaintiff would prevail to justify ordering the identity to be revealed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319750</id>
	<title>Re:WARNING - DAILY FAIL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259851260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does the U.K. actually have any newspapers that <i>aren't</i> tabloids these days?</p><p>Does the left in the U.K. still try to dismiss anyone who isn't as left as they are by labeling them as "far-right" and "foaming-at-the-mouth"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the U.K. actually have any newspapers that are n't tabloids these days ? Does the left in the U.K. still try to dismiss anyone who is n't as left as they are by labeling them as " far-right " and " foaming-at-the-mouth " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the U.K. actually have any newspapers that aren't tabloids these days?Does the left in the U.K. still try to dismiss anyone who isn't as left as they are by labeling them as "far-right" and "foaming-at-the-mouth"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319278</id>
	<title>Do you believe everything someone tells you?</title>
	<author>PakProtector</author>
	<datestamp>1259847600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excuse me for asking the question nobody seems to be asking:  How do we actually know she's being blackmailed?</p><p>1) Person says something about you don't like<br>2)Claim they're blackmailing you<br>3)Judge orders person's identity revealed<br>4)Lawsuit<br>5)Profit!  (And jail time for the accused Blackmailer)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excuse me for asking the question nobody seems to be asking : How do we actually know she 's being blackmailed ? 1 ) Person says something about you do n't like2 ) Claim they 're blackmailing you3 ) Judge orders person 's identity revealed4 ) Lawsuit5 ) Profit !
( And jail time for the accused Blackmailer )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excuse me for asking the question nobody seems to be asking:  How do we actually know she's being blackmailed?1) Person says something about you don't like2)Claim they're blackmailing you3)Judge orders person's identity revealed4)Lawsuit5)Profit!
(And jail time for the accused Blackmailer)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320438</id>
	<title>Re:Jurisdiction?</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1259857260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. In this case. Why in this case? Because a JUDGE has decided that this is a case of blackmail. And while I know no judge is infallible, they are human after all and the evidence presented may be incomplete or incorrect, I do generally trust their qualities. And if a judge says it's a case of blackmail then I would consider it a case of blackmail until proven otherwise.
</p><p>So even though that judge may be in the UK and WP in the USA it would be nice for them to comply with the request and reveal the IP address from which the edit was done. After that it's again up to law enforcement to figure out who actually did it. Whether the information is enough is another matter, at least WP did what they could and should do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
In this case .
Why in this case ?
Because a JUDGE has decided that this is a case of blackmail .
And while I know no judge is infallible , they are human after all and the evidence presented may be incomplete or incorrect , I do generally trust their qualities .
And if a judge says it 's a case of blackmail then I would consider it a case of blackmail until proven otherwise .
So even though that judge may be in the UK and WP in the USA it would be nice for them to comply with the request and reveal the IP address from which the edit was done .
After that it 's again up to law enforcement to figure out who actually did it .
Whether the information is enough is another matter , at least WP did what they could and should do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
In this case.
Why in this case?
Because a JUDGE has decided that this is a case of blackmail.
And while I know no judge is infallible, they are human after all and the evidence presented may be incomplete or incorrect, I do generally trust their qualities.
And if a judge says it's a case of blackmail then I would consider it a case of blackmail until proven otherwise.
So even though that judge may be in the UK and WP in the USA it would be nice for them to comply with the request and reveal the IP address from which the edit was done.
After that it's again up to law enforcement to figure out who actually did it.
Whether the information is enough is another matter, at least WP did what they could and should do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319530</id>
	<title>Crossing Borders</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1259849520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>      Does this court feel that the individual who committed the offense lives within their jurisdiction? Or does this court feel that it has the right to extend its grasp into other nations?<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; This treaty nonsense is an offense to liberties of free men around the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this court feel that the individual who committed the offense lives within their jurisdiction ?
Or does this court feel that it has the right to extend its grasp into other nations ?
            This treaty nonsense is an offense to liberties of free men around the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      Does this court feel that the individual who committed the offense lives within their jurisdiction?
Or does this court feel that it has the right to extend its grasp into other nations?
            This treaty nonsense is an offense to liberties of free men around the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321112</id>
	<title>Re:Tor</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1259864580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
They are not always blocked; primarily only blocked when abused, and there are methods such as <b>exemption</b> through which some people edit through open (or closed) anonymous proxies.<br>
Sometimes they make exceptions and allow people to edit through known open proxies, or so states the site / policy / block message for open proxies, to contact them.
</p><p>
More details here, at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Open\_proxies" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia:Open\_Proxies</a> [wikipedia.org], in particular:
</p><blockquote><div><p>Open or anonymising proxies, including Tor, may be blocked from editing for any period at any time. While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked. No restrictions are placed on reading Wikipedia through an open or anonymous proxy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br> <br>
Chinese contributors who wish to edit Wikipedia, as well as administrators considering blocking Tor proxies, should sign up for free access to Wikipedia-only proxies at Wikipedia:WikiProject on closed proxies or read Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall. Additionally, because of the creation of the IP block exemption flag, editors, like those in China, who have a demonstrated need to use proxies or Tor to edit may be given the ability to edit from blocked IPs. See Wikipedia:IP block exemption for more.</p></div>

</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are not always blocked ; primarily only blocked when abused , and there are methods such as exemption through which some people edit through open ( or closed ) anonymous proxies .
Sometimes they make exceptions and allow people to edit through known open proxies , or so states the site / policy / block message for open proxies , to contact them .
More details here , at Wikipedia : Open \ _Proxies [ wikipedia.org ] , in particular : Open or anonymising proxies , including Tor , may be blocked from editing for any period at any time .
While this may affect legitimate users , they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked .
No restrictions are placed on reading Wikipedia through an open or anonymous proxy .
.. . Chinese contributors who wish to edit Wikipedia , as well as administrators considering blocking Tor proxies , should sign up for free access to Wikipedia-only proxies at Wikipedia : WikiProject on closed proxies or read Wikipedia : Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall .
Additionally , because of the creation of the IP block exemption flag , editors , like those in China , who have a demonstrated need to use proxies or Tor to edit may be given the ability to edit from blocked IPs .
See Wikipedia : IP block exemption for more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
They are not always blocked; primarily only blocked when abused, and there are methods such as exemption through which some people edit through open (or closed) anonymous proxies.
Sometimes they make exceptions and allow people to edit through known open proxies, or so states the site / policy / block message for open proxies, to contact them.
More details here, at Wikipedia:Open\_Proxies [wikipedia.org], in particular:
Open or anonymising proxies, including Tor, may be blocked from editing for any period at any time.
While this may affect legitimate users, they are not the intended targets and may freely use proxies until those are blocked.
No restrictions are placed on reading Wikipedia through an open or anonymous proxy.
... 
Chinese contributors who wish to edit Wikipedia, as well as administrators considering blocking Tor proxies, should sign up for free access to Wikipedia-only proxies at Wikipedia:WikiProject on closed proxies or read Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall.
Additionally, because of the creation of the IP block exemption flag, editors, like those in China, who have a demonstrated need to use proxies or Tor to edit may be given the ability to edit from blocked IPs.
See Wikipedia:IP block exemption for more.


	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319544</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1259849640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know a lot of people don't RTFA, but is it to much to ask that you at least read the Slashdot summary?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know a lot of people do n't RTFA , but is it to much to ask that you at least read the Slashdot summary ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know a lot of people don't RTFA, but is it to much to ask that you at least read the Slashdot summary?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318804</id>
	<title>Let me be the first to say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259845140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing.</p><p>Because I don't want you to know who I am.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing.Because I do n't want you to know who I am .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing.Because I don't want you to know who I am.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321962</id>
	<title>Re:WARNING - DAILY FAIL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259920860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We prefer to call it the 'Daily Heil'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; (oops, Godwin<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We prefer to call it the 'Daily Heil ' .. .       ( oops , Godwin : - ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We prefer to call it the 'Daily Heil' ...
      (oops, Godwin :-) )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320052</id>
	<title>Re:Tor</title>
	<author>aqwcenturion</author>
	<datestamp>1259853600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unlikely. TOR nodes are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia for such reasons - all open proxies are blocked by default.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlikely .
TOR nodes are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia for such reasons - all open proxies are blocked by default .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlikely.
TOR nodes are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia for such reasons - all open proxies are blocked by default.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319744</id>
	<title>web connect= little privacy No web= more privacy</title>
	<author>gamecrusader</author>
	<datestamp>1259851200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not that i believe posting "sensitve data" is right on wikipedia, but isn't blackmailing spose to mean that person x is threating to put person y's somthing real personal for example not actually doing it unless person y didn't do what they asked them, after all what wikpedia meant for i mean all sorts of things are on that site, biographies of people, peoples histories, histories of countries, famous people, informations about everything that can be written down?</p><p>and how bout the affairs and personal life/ data leaked to the media or anyone about people of general public interest, famous people, or anyone in the media could get their hands on, especially like elections, I mean come on sensitive data covers just about anything that means a lot to someone or almost anything that might mean somthing to someone? How do they know that a person who posted the data was another faction/ person/ ect. posing as a the unfortunate possible victim that the true black mailer is using?</p><p>so many questions, its hard even for the government to figure out at times what is the 'truth' and what isn't online? or do we have the ultimate way to blackmail a person the mother blackmails the other guy?</p><p>The internet, you go on to be warned things will spread that you don't want to, or you will be impersonated, like some one using the same name as me on face book, real name, if the kids info was on facebook and he played any of their games it's possible to get access to that. or even get friends in the game.<br>Better not be facebook, beacuse if it is its going to go to become a lawsuit.</p><p>Face it People, The internet, don't post information on any site unless you know its secure, especially sites like facebook, and games that then run using face book or any other similar application as people can get into the friends list and look around. If people go your data will be sold to others come on. I see a lawsuit coming with this "the Black mailer" suing family its bound to happen</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not that i believe posting " sensitve data " is right on wikipedia , but is n't blackmailing spose to mean that person x is threating to put person y 's somthing real personal for example not actually doing it unless person y did n't do what they asked them , after all what wikpedia meant for i mean all sorts of things are on that site , biographies of people , peoples histories , histories of countries , famous people , informations about everything that can be written down ? and how bout the affairs and personal life/ data leaked to the media or anyone about people of general public interest , famous people , or anyone in the media could get their hands on , especially like elections , I mean come on sensitive data covers just about anything that means a lot to someone or almost anything that might mean somthing to someone ?
How do they know that a person who posted the data was another faction/ person/ ect .
posing as a the unfortunate possible victim that the true black mailer is using ? so many questions , its hard even for the government to figure out at times what is the 'truth ' and what is n't online ?
or do we have the ultimate way to blackmail a person the mother blackmails the other guy ? The internet , you go on to be warned things will spread that you do n't want to , or you will be impersonated , like some one using the same name as me on face book , real name , if the kids info was on facebook and he played any of their games it 's possible to get access to that .
or even get friends in the game.Better not be facebook , beacuse if it is its going to go to become a lawsuit.Face it People , The internet , do n't post information on any site unless you know its secure , especially sites like facebook , and games that then run using face book or any other similar application as people can get into the friends list and look around .
If people go your data will be sold to others come on .
I see a lawsuit coming with this " the Black mailer " suing family its bound to happen</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not that i believe posting "sensitve data" is right on wikipedia, but isn't blackmailing spose to mean that person x is threating to put person y's somthing real personal for example not actually doing it unless person y didn't do what they asked them, after all what wikpedia meant for i mean all sorts of things are on that site, biographies of people, peoples histories, histories of countries, famous people, informations about everything that can be written down?and how bout the affairs and personal life/ data leaked to the media or anyone about people of general public interest, famous people, or anyone in the media could get their hands on, especially like elections, I mean come on sensitive data covers just about anything that means a lot to someone or almost anything that might mean somthing to someone?
How do they know that a person who posted the data was another faction/ person/ ect.
posing as a the unfortunate possible victim that the true black mailer is using?so many questions, its hard even for the government to figure out at times what is the 'truth' and what isn't online?
or do we have the ultimate way to blackmail a person the mother blackmails the other guy?The internet, you go on to be warned things will spread that you don't want to, or you will be impersonated, like some one using the same name as me on face book, real name, if the kids info was on facebook and he played any of their games it's possible to get access to that.
or even get friends in the game.Better not be facebook, beacuse if it is its going to go to become a lawsuit.Face it People, The internet, don't post information on any site unless you know its secure, especially sites like facebook, and games that then run using face book or any other similar application as people can get into the friends list and look around.
If people go your data will be sold to others come on.
I see a lawsuit coming with this "the Black mailer" suing family its bound to happen</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30326156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320276
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30323342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30323976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_03_2354215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30329348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2354215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2354215.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2354215.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2354215.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2354215.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2354215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2354215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319748
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2354215.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2354215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321112
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30323976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30323342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321078
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30329348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2354215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30326156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2354215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2354215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2354215.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319476
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2354215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2354215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2354215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2354215.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321690
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320878
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320276
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_03_2354215.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30321486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320868
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322762
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30318948
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30320146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30322646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319280
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_03_2354215.30319586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
