<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_06_1724208</id>
	<title>"Lawful Spying" Price Lists Leaked</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1260124320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>ogaraf writes <i>"Wired has a story about how the site Cryptome.org <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/12/yahoo-spy-prices">leaked the price lists for 'lawful spying' activities of Yahoo</a> and other companies, and subsequently <a href="http://cryptome.org/0001/yahoo-cryptome.htm">received a DMCA takedown notice</a> from Yahoo. The documents, however, are <a href="http://cryptome.org/">still posted online</a>, and in them you can learn, for instance, that IP logs last for one year, but the original IPs used to create accounts have been kept since 1999. The contents of your Yahoo account are bought for $30 to $40 by law enforcement agencies."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>ogaraf writes " Wired has a story about how the site Cryptome.org leaked the price lists for 'lawful spying ' activities of Yahoo and other companies , and subsequently received a DMCA takedown notice from Yahoo .
The documents , however , are still posted online , and in them you can learn , for instance , that IP logs last for one year , but the original IPs used to create accounts have been kept since 1999 .
The contents of your Yahoo account are bought for $ 30 to $ 40 by law enforcement agencies .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ogaraf writes "Wired has a story about how the site Cryptome.org leaked the price lists for 'lawful spying' activities of Yahoo and other companies, and subsequently received a DMCA takedown notice from Yahoo.
The documents, however, are still posted online, and in them you can learn, for instance, that IP logs last for one year, but the original IPs used to create accounts have been kept since 1999.
The contents of your Yahoo account are bought for $30 to $40 by law enforcement agencies.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344990</id>
	<title>no problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260130320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Luckily, the last time i used yahoo was in 1997</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Luckily , the last time i used yahoo was in 1997</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Luckily, the last time i used yahoo was in 1997</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344724</id>
	<title>Tempest in a tea cup</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1260128580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you actually read the documents (I know, that's too hard), you'll see that this is a list of information Yahoo! can provide in compliance of subpoenas, search warrants and court orders.</p><p>Oooh, if the cops get a search warrant, they can look at your Yahoo! friends list. It's the end of liberty as we know it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you actually read the documents ( I know , that 's too hard ) , you 'll see that this is a list of information Yahoo !
can provide in compliance of subpoenas , search warrants and court orders.Oooh , if the cops get a search warrant , they can look at your Yahoo !
friends list .
It 's the end of liberty as we know it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you actually read the documents (I know, that's too hard), you'll see that this is a list of information Yahoo!
can provide in compliance of subpoenas, search warrants and court orders.Oooh, if the cops get a search warrant, they can look at your Yahoo!
friends list.
It's the end of liberty as we know it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30350942</id>
	<title>Re:Tempest in a tea cup</title>
	<author>bwcbwc</author>
	<datestamp>1260184380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention your emails. AT&amp;T has migrated its mail services to Yahoo, so I now have a new Yahoo account instead of a mailbox on AT&amp;T, even though the mail domain is unchanged. I imagine other ISPs are also outsourcing mailserver costs like this.</p><p>On the other hand, I doubt Yahoo! is any worse than AT&amp;T in terms of bending over and spreading them at the drop of a National Security Letter. So I'm worse off because the government has two shots to get at my data on AT&amp;T/Yahoo!, but they have to spend twice as much to make sure they've got all of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention your emails .
AT&amp;T has migrated its mail services to Yahoo , so I now have a new Yahoo account instead of a mailbox on AT&amp;T , even though the mail domain is unchanged .
I imagine other ISPs are also outsourcing mailserver costs like this.On the other hand , I doubt Yahoo !
is any worse than AT&amp;T in terms of bending over and spreading them at the drop of a National Security Letter .
So I 'm worse off because the government has two shots to get at my data on AT&amp;T/Yahoo ! , but they have to spend twice as much to make sure they 've got all of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention your emails.
AT&amp;T has migrated its mail services to Yahoo, so I now have a new Yahoo account instead of a mailbox on AT&amp;T, even though the mail domain is unchanged.
I imagine other ISPs are also outsourcing mailserver costs like this.On the other hand, I doubt Yahoo!
is any worse than AT&amp;T in terms of bending over and spreading them at the drop of a National Security Letter.
So I'm worse off because the government has two shots to get at my data on AT&amp;T/Yahoo!, but they have to spend twice as much to make sure they've got all of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345978</id>
	<title>Re:You've got to be kidding me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260095220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem isn't necessarily a "should have thought about something". The problem is that Yahoo as well as any other service provider is required by law to retain records and make them available to the authorities when requested. The fee's are a provision of the law that allows the service providers to recuperate expenses for doing so.</p><p>So tell me, if the law required you to do something that would make your customers cringe, would you not want them to know about it or the extent you have to comply? Or would be be stupid and just put everything in the open while your competitor can play dumb, keep his shit a secret, and take all your shocked customers from you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is n't necessarily a " should have thought about something " .
The problem is that Yahoo as well as any other service provider is required by law to retain records and make them available to the authorities when requested .
The fee 's are a provision of the law that allows the service providers to recuperate expenses for doing so.So tell me , if the law required you to do something that would make your customers cringe , would you not want them to know about it or the extent you have to comply ?
Or would be be stupid and just put everything in the open while your competitor can play dumb , keep his shit a secret , and take all your shocked customers from you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem isn't necessarily a "should have thought about something".
The problem is that Yahoo as well as any other service provider is required by law to retain records and make them available to the authorities when requested.
The fee's are a provision of the law that allows the service providers to recuperate expenses for doing so.So tell me, if the law required you to do something that would make your customers cringe, would you not want them to know about it or the extent you have to comply?
Or would be be stupid and just put everything in the open while your competitor can play dumb, keep his shit a secret, and take all your shocked customers from you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344738</id>
	<title>Takedown demand contradiction?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260128700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can a document be both confidential and copyrighted?</p><p>"Lawyer claims intellectual property rights on method to suck and blow at same time."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can a document be both confidential and copyrighted ?
" Lawyer claims intellectual property rights on method to suck and blow at same time .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can a document be both confidential and copyrighted?
"Lawyer claims intellectual property rights on method to suck and blow at same time.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346378</id>
	<title>Re:You've got to be kidding me</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1260097860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Come on, guys! You're billing the government!</p></div> </blockquote><p>It didn't say this information was being sold to <i>the government</i> for $30, it said it was being sold to <i>law enforcement</i>.</p><p>"Law enforcement" and "the government" are increasingly <i>not the same thing</i>.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , guys !
You 're billing the government !
It did n't say this information was being sold to the government for $ 30 , it said it was being sold to law enforcement .
" Law enforcement " and " the government " are increasingly not the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, guys!
You're billing the government!
It didn't say this information was being sold to the government for $30, it said it was being sold to law enforcement.
"Law enforcement" and "the government" are increasingly not the same thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344874</id>
	<title>Re:Tempest in a tea cup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260129540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are allowed to charge to comply with a search warrant?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are allowed to charge to comply with a search warrant ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are allowed to charge to comply with a search warrant?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345118</id>
	<title>Why are people boycotting yahoo?</title>
	<author>Funzo22</author>
	<datestamp>1260131340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091206112730AAYSucH" title="yahoo.com" rel="nofollow">http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091206112730AAYSucH</a> [yahoo.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //answers.yahoo.com/question/index ? qid = 20091206112730AAYSucH [ yahoo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091206112730AAYSucH [yahoo.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30348692</id>
	<title>Sprint:  If 2 LEOs involved, bill BOTH LEOs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260115200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sprint's policy (per Sprint-Spy.pdf) seems to be:</p><p>If 2 agencies are involved in requesting a Court Order, bill both of them.</p><p>I hope someone's checking to insure that both DON'T pay ONE bill...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sprint 's policy ( per Sprint-Spy.pdf ) seems to be : If 2 agencies are involved in requesting a Court Order , bill both of them.I hope someone 's checking to insure that both DO N'T pay ONE bill... : -/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sprint's policy (per Sprint-Spy.pdf) seems to be:If 2 agencies are involved in requesting a Court Order, bill both of them.I hope someone's checking to insure that both DON'T pay ONE bill... :-/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345122</id>
	<title>Re:Get what you pay for</title>
	<author>Nutria</author>
	<datestamp>1260131340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yes: you're an idiot to think that even the most expensive "explicit privacy protection" paid services won't comply with warrants.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes : you 're an idiot to think that even the most expensive " explicit privacy protection " paid services wo n't comply with warrants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes: you're an idiot to think that even the most expensive "explicit privacy protection" paid services won't comply with warrants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345558</id>
	<title>Re:This is outrageous.</title>
	<author>iammani</author>
	<datestamp>1260091560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah right, the same people who did not go ape-shit for warrant-less wire tapping, are going ape-shit on yahoo giving the govt your data when presented with a warrant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah right , the same people who did not go ape-shit for warrant-less wire tapping , are going ape-shit on yahoo giving the govt your data when presented with a warrant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah right, the same people who did not go ape-shit for warrant-less wire tapping, are going ape-shit on yahoo giving the govt your data when presented with a warrant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345208</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344792</id>
	<title>Wikileaks</title>
	<author>yamamushi</author>
	<datestamp>1260129120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a good thing it's already been archived on WikiLeaks <a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Yahoo\_compliance\_guide\_for\_law\_enforcement\%2C\_23\_Dec\_2008" title="wikileaks.org">http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Yahoo\_compliance\_guide\_for\_law\_enforcement\%2C\_23\_Dec\_2008</a> [wikileaks.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a good thing it 's already been archived on WikiLeaks http : //wikileaks.org/wiki/Yahoo \ _compliance \ _guide \ _for \ _law \ _enforcement \ % 2C \ _23 \ _Dec \ _2008 [ wikileaks.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a good thing it's already been archived on WikiLeaks http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Yahoo\_compliance\_guide\_for\_law\_enforcement\%2C\_23\_Dec\_2008 [wikileaks.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346188</id>
	<title>Re:Wikileaks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260096720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least Google <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=oHg5SJYRHA0&amp;btnI=3564" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">have made their policy public</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least Google have made their policy public [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least Google have made their policy public [google.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344700</id>
	<title>Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260128400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... I guess I expected a little more respect from a company I let throw advertisements at me all day and get rich off of it.</p><p>If they won't respect us, why should we respect them?</p><p>Everyone install Ad Block Plus and mail dog turds to these fools!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... I guess I expected a little more respect from a company I let throw advertisements at me all day and get rich off of it.If they wo n't respect us , why should we respect them ? Everyone install Ad Block Plus and mail dog turds to these fools !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I guess I expected a little more respect from a company I let throw advertisements at me all day and get rich off of it.If they won't respect us, why should we respect them?Everyone install Ad Block Plus and mail dog turds to these fools!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30351170</id>
	<title>Re:You've got to be kidding me</title>
	<author>Nazlfrag</author>
	<datestamp>1260188160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Screw that, time to undercut them. I hereby offer my entire Yahoo search history for the low low price of $25! From federal governments down to local councils, now is the time to invest in a database of my transactions! If you don't start keeping a secret folder on me then you're not one of us, and if you're not with us... well, let's just say you don't want to go there. So think of the children and order today!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw that , time to undercut them .
I hereby offer my entire Yahoo search history for the low low price of $ 25 !
From federal governments down to local councils , now is the time to invest in a database of my transactions !
If you do n't start keeping a secret folder on me then you 're not one of us , and if you 're not with us... well , let 's just say you do n't want to go there .
So think of the children and order today !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw that, time to undercut them.
I hereby offer my entire Yahoo search history for the low low price of $25!
From federal governments down to local councils, now is the time to invest in a database of my transactions!
If you don't start keeping a secret folder on me then you're not one of us, and if you're not with us... well, let's just say you don't want to go there.
So think of the children and order today!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345664</id>
	<title>Re:You've got to be kidding me</title>
	<author>Sulphur</author>
	<datestamp>1260092400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't handle the truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't handle the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't handle the truth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345776</id>
	<title>Cost reimbursement: it's the law</title>
	<author>Gracenotes</author>
	<datestamp>1260093420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's the law, apparently, at least if you're not a common carrier. From Yahoo's compliance guide,<blockquote><div><p>Federal law (See 18 U.S.C.  2706) requires law enforcement to reimburse providers like Yahoo! for costs incurred responding to subpoena requests, court orders, or search warrants. Yahoo! generally requests reimbursement when responding to legal process, except that Yahoo! maintains an exception to this policy for cases involving the abduction or exploitation of children.</p></div></blockquote><p>

The law is available <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc\_sec\_18\_00002706----000-.html" title="cornell.edu">here</a> [cornell.edu]. It's a requirement for law enforcement requesting information, not the organizations providing it (except that the amount is "mutually agreed by the governmental entity and the person or entity providing the information").</p><blockquote><div><p>A governmental entity obtaining the contents of communications, records, or other information under section 2702, 2703, or 2704 of this title shall pay to the person or entity assembling or providing such information a fee for reimbursement for such costs as are reasonably necessary and which have been directly incurred in searching for, assembling, reproducing, or otherwise providing such information. Such reimbursable costs shall include any costs due to necessary disruption of normal operations of any electronic communication service or remote computing service in which such information may be stored.</p></div></blockquote><p>

So, the guide is a means for law enforcement to interact with Yahoo (and the law) in a standard, easier way. Does it make it more likely that investigators would ask Yahoo for documents if Yahoo makes it easy, as opposed to cooperating as little as possible? Probably. But Yahoo has no reason not to cooperate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the law , apparently , at least if you 're not a common carrier .
From Yahoo 's compliance guide,Federal law ( See 18 U.S.C .
2706 ) requires law enforcement to reimburse providers like Yahoo !
for costs incurred responding to subpoena requests , court orders , or search warrants .
Yahoo ! generally requests reimbursement when responding to legal process , except that Yahoo !
maintains an exception to this policy for cases involving the abduction or exploitation of children .
The law is available here [ cornell.edu ] .
It 's a requirement for law enforcement requesting information , not the organizations providing it ( except that the amount is " mutually agreed by the governmental entity and the person or entity providing the information " ) .A governmental entity obtaining the contents of communications , records , or other information under section 2702 , 2703 , or 2704 of this title shall pay to the person or entity assembling or providing such information a fee for reimbursement for such costs as are reasonably necessary and which have been directly incurred in searching for , assembling , reproducing , or otherwise providing such information .
Such reimbursable costs shall include any costs due to necessary disruption of normal operations of any electronic communication service or remote computing service in which such information may be stored .
So , the guide is a means for law enforcement to interact with Yahoo ( and the law ) in a standard , easier way .
Does it make it more likely that investigators would ask Yahoo for documents if Yahoo makes it easy , as opposed to cooperating as little as possible ?
Probably. But Yahoo has no reason not to cooperate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the law, apparently, at least if you're not a common carrier.
From Yahoo's compliance guide,Federal law (See 18 U.S.C.
2706) requires law enforcement to reimburse providers like Yahoo!
for costs incurred responding to subpoena requests, court orders, or search warrants.
Yahoo! generally requests reimbursement when responding to legal process, except that Yahoo!
maintains an exception to this policy for cases involving the abduction or exploitation of children.
The law is available here [cornell.edu].
It's a requirement for law enforcement requesting information, not the organizations providing it (except that the amount is "mutually agreed by the governmental entity and the person or entity providing the information").A governmental entity obtaining the contents of communications, records, or other information under section 2702, 2703, or 2704 of this title shall pay to the person or entity assembling or providing such information a fee for reimbursement for such costs as are reasonably necessary and which have been directly incurred in searching for, assembling, reproducing, or otherwise providing such information.
Such reimbursable costs shall include any costs due to necessary disruption of normal operations of any electronic communication service or remote computing service in which such information may be stored.
So, the guide is a means for law enforcement to interact with Yahoo (and the law) in a standard, easier way.
Does it make it more likely that investigators would ask Yahoo for documents if Yahoo makes it easy, as opposed to cooperating as little as possible?
Probably. But Yahoo has no reason not to cooperate.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344818</id>
	<title>Pricing makes it creepy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260129240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that Yahoo occasionally complies with the authorities. It is that they have a pricing scheme for it. Maybe this is common practice, but it sounds like instead of fighting for the user, Yahoo is rolling over and perhaps even jumping at the opportunity to make a quick buck by selling out someone's confidential information.</p><p>End of liberty as we know it? No. Scary, when combined with the US government's increasingly arbitrary conditions for search warrants if you're a "terrorist"? Yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that Yahoo occasionally complies with the authorities .
It is that they have a pricing scheme for it .
Maybe this is common practice , but it sounds like instead of fighting for the user , Yahoo is rolling over and perhaps even jumping at the opportunity to make a quick buck by selling out someone 's confidential information.End of liberty as we know it ?
No. Scary , when combined with the US government 's increasingly arbitrary conditions for search warrants if you 're a " terrorist " ?
Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that Yahoo occasionally complies with the authorities.
It is that they have a pricing scheme for it.
Maybe this is common practice, but it sounds like instead of fighting for the user, Yahoo is rolling over and perhaps even jumping at the opportunity to make a quick buck by selling out someone's confidential information.End of liberty as we know it?
No. Scary, when combined with the US government's increasingly arbitrary conditions for search warrants if you're a "terrorist"?
Yes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345752</id>
	<title>A copyright notice is optional ...</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1260093180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a copyright notice is optional, then some means to know whether the document is genuinely copyrighted PRIOR to its dissemination would be needed for others to know that it is in fact copyrighted.  It could be that copyrighting the document was overlooked, and has only been corrected after the fact.  If they did copyright it prior to dissemination, then there has to be at least something to show this.</p><p>Michael Gershberg appears to be claiming, if Cryptome's copy of the letter is accurate, that the document is in fact copyrighted.  So how is it that he knows this to be the case?  Does he see some instrumental proof that the document is copyrighted?  Was he just personally told that the document is copyrighted?  He should support his claim by providing a notarized copy of the instrumental proof, or swear out a claim citing who told him that it was copyrighted, in order to be convincing.  Otherwise, he is not very convincing at all.</p><p>The lack of a copyright notice always gives the APPEARANCE of not being copyrighted.  How can anyone know otherwise unless there is some alternative proof.  WHERE'S THE PROOF?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a copyright notice is optional , then some means to know whether the document is genuinely copyrighted PRIOR to its dissemination would be needed for others to know that it is in fact copyrighted .
It could be that copyrighting the document was overlooked , and has only been corrected after the fact .
If they did copyright it prior to dissemination , then there has to be at least something to show this.Michael Gershberg appears to be claiming , if Cryptome 's copy of the letter is accurate , that the document is in fact copyrighted .
So how is it that he knows this to be the case ?
Does he see some instrumental proof that the document is copyrighted ?
Was he just personally told that the document is copyrighted ?
He should support his claim by providing a notarized copy of the instrumental proof , or swear out a claim citing who told him that it was copyrighted , in order to be convincing .
Otherwise , he is not very convincing at all.The lack of a copyright notice always gives the APPEARANCE of not being copyrighted .
How can anyone know otherwise unless there is some alternative proof .
WHERE 'S THE PROOF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a copyright notice is optional, then some means to know whether the document is genuinely copyrighted PRIOR to its dissemination would be needed for others to know that it is in fact copyrighted.
It could be that copyrighting the document was overlooked, and has only been corrected after the fact.
If they did copyright it prior to dissemination, then there has to be at least something to show this.Michael Gershberg appears to be claiming, if Cryptome's copy of the letter is accurate, that the document is in fact copyrighted.
So how is it that he knows this to be the case?
Does he see some instrumental proof that the document is copyrighted?
Was he just personally told that the document is copyrighted?
He should support his claim by providing a notarized copy of the instrumental proof, or swear out a claim citing who told him that it was copyrighted, in order to be convincing.
Otherwise, he is not very convincing at all.The lack of a copyright notice always gives the APPEARANCE of not being copyrighted.
How can anyone know otherwise unless there is some alternative proof.
WHERE'S THE PROOF?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30347042</id>
	<title>Ooops.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260102480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can delete your Yahoo! account here:</p><p>https://edit.yahoo.com/config/delete\_user</p><p>I did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can delete your Yahoo !
account here : https : //edit.yahoo.com/config/delete \ _userI did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can delete your Yahoo!
account here:https://edit.yahoo.com/config/delete\_userI did.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344886</id>
	<title>Re:You've got to be kidding me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260129600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Only $30 per? Really?? Violating my privacy is bad enough,</i></p><p>Did you actually <b>read</b> the document (especially the part about <b>narrowly-crafted subpoenas and court orders</b>)?</p><p>Of course you didn't...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only $ 30 per ?
Really ? ? Violating my privacy is bad enough,Did you actually read the document ( especially the part about narrowly-crafted subpoenas and court orders ) ? Of course you did n't.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only $30 per?
Really?? Violating my privacy is bad enough,Did you actually read the document (especially the part about narrowly-crafted subpoenas and court orders)?Of course you didn't...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344788</id>
	<title>The Yahoo list isn't much of anything.</title>
	<author>rdunnell</author>
	<datestamp>1260129060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read it, you'll see that it's basically an explanation of what information they do and do not have, how their various properties work and what information they store, and how much it will cost an agency to have certain information requests addressed.  It doesn't represent some sort of sinister pipeline of information directly from their users' keyboards to the "evil government."  If anything it's useful to everyone because it shows exactly what they do and don't save, and it might act as a deterrent for the casual or clueless investigator who watches too much CSI and thinks sending a request off will instantly pinpoint the bad guy by backtracking his DNS through the GPS IP address of his netbook's MAC module or whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read it , you 'll see that it 's basically an explanation of what information they do and do not have , how their various properties work and what information they store , and how much it will cost an agency to have certain information requests addressed .
It does n't represent some sort of sinister pipeline of information directly from their users ' keyboards to the " evil government .
" If anything it 's useful to everyone because it shows exactly what they do and do n't save , and it might act as a deterrent for the casual or clueless investigator who watches too much CSI and thinks sending a request off will instantly pinpoint the bad guy by backtracking his DNS through the GPS IP address of his netbook 's MAC module or whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read it, you'll see that it's basically an explanation of what information they do and do not have, how their various properties work and what information they store, and how much it will cost an agency to have certain information requests addressed.
It doesn't represent some sort of sinister pipeline of information directly from their users' keyboards to the "evil government.
"  If anything it's useful to everyone because it shows exactly what they do and don't save, and it might act as a deterrent for the casual or clueless investigator who watches too much CSI and thinks sending a request off will instantly pinpoint the bad guy by backtracking his DNS through the GPS IP address of his netbook's MAC module or whatever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666</id>
	<title>You've got to be kidding me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260128100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like the part where Yahoo complains that the leaking of the document could "shock" its users and damage its reputation. Shoulda thought of that earlier, huh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the part where Yahoo complains that the leaking of the document could " shock " its users and damage its reputation .
Shoulda thought of that earlier , huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the part where Yahoo complains that the leaking of the document could "shock" its users and damage its reputation.
Shoulda thought of that earlier, huh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346492</id>
	<title>Encrypt, obfuscate, misdirect.</title>
	<author>Paracelcus</author>
	<datestamp>1260098580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that you have to, but why not make the tyrants job that much harder and more expensive.</p><p>After (they) spend thousands (millions?) gaining access (if possible) to the data, what if all the had was perfectly innocuous (useless) crap?</p><p>Let the paranoid bastards waste their time and money chasing shadows!</p><p>"Freedom has the advantage of being the cheapest form of government"  --Desmond Tutu.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that you have to , but why not make the tyrants job that much harder and more expensive.After ( they ) spend thousands ( millions ?
) gaining access ( if possible ) to the data , what if all the had was perfectly innocuous ( useless ) crap ? Let the paranoid bastards waste their time and money chasing shadows !
" Freedom has the advantage of being the cheapest form of government " --Desmond Tutu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that you have to, but why not make the tyrants job that much harder and more expensive.After (they) spend thousands (millions?
) gaining access (if possible) to the data, what if all the had was perfectly innocuous (useless) crap?Let the paranoid bastards waste their time and money chasing shadows!
"Freedom has the advantage of being the cheapest form of government"  --Desmond Tutu.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345298</id>
	<title>Re:Takedown demand contradiction?</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1260132660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How can a document be both confidential and copyrighted?</p></div><p>That's pretty easy. Works are automatically copyrighted at the time of creation. If you don't disclose the work, then it's both copyrighted and confidential. Did you try putting even two seconds of thought into it before you asked that question? It's not very difficult.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can a document be both confidential and copyrighted ? That 's pretty easy .
Works are automatically copyrighted at the time of creation .
If you do n't disclose the work , then it 's both copyrighted and confidential .
Did you try putting even two seconds of thought into it before you asked that question ?
It 's not very difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can a document be both confidential and copyrighted?That's pretty easy.
Works are automatically copyrighted at the time of creation.
If you don't disclose the work, then it's both copyrighted and confidential.
Did you try putting even two seconds of thought into it before you asked that question?
It's not very difficult.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344764</id>
	<title>Re:You've got to be kidding me</title>
	<author>Dreadneck</author>
	<datestamp>1260128940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I like the part where Yahoo complains that the leaking of the document could "shock" its users and damage its reputation.</p></div><p>I <i>AM</i> shocked!</p><p>Only $30 per?  Really??  Violating my privacy is bad enough, but the insult to my dignity is despicable!</p><p>Come on, guys! You're billing <i>the government</i>!  Add some zeroes for fuck's sake - it's not like you're billing Medicare!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the part where Yahoo complains that the leaking of the document could " shock " its users and damage its reputation.I AM shocked ! Only $ 30 per ?
Really ? ? Violating my privacy is bad enough , but the insult to my dignity is despicable ! Come on , guys !
You 're billing the government !
Add some zeroes for fuck 's sake - it 's not like you 're billing Medicare !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the part where Yahoo complains that the leaking of the document could "shock" its users and damage its reputation.I AM shocked!Only $30 per?
Really??  Violating my privacy is bad enough, but the insult to my dignity is despicable!Come on, guys!
You're billing the government!
Add some zeroes for fuck's sake - it's not like you're billing Medicare!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30356806</id>
	<title>Re:You've got to be kidding me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260218760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ummm, i'm guessing that i'm some irony here but you do know that Medicare IS run by the gov't, right?  I only ask because it seems like a lot of people don't and are worried at a "gov't option" would take their Medicare away.  (Recall the news story about the guy during a town hall meeting telling a senator not to mess with his medicare.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ummm , i 'm guessing that i 'm some irony here but you do know that Medicare IS run by the gov't , right ?
I only ask because it seems like a lot of people do n't and are worried at a " gov't option " would take their Medicare away .
( Recall the news story about the guy during a town hall meeting telling a senator not to mess with his medicare .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ummm, i'm guessing that i'm some irony here but you do know that Medicare IS run by the gov't, right?
I only ask because it seems like a lot of people don't and are worried at a "gov't option" would take their Medicare away.
(Recall the news story about the guy during a town hall meeting telling a senator not to mess with his medicare.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344906</id>
	<title>Obvious tag</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260129720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>streisandeffect. Some people never learn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>streisandeffect .
Some people never learn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>streisandeffect.
Some people never learn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345532</id>
	<title>Re:Tempest in a tea cup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260091380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>no. but it sure does cool down the idea of "freedom of association"... but hey, if you say it's all good, it must be all good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>no .
but it sure does cool down the idea of " freedom of association " ... but hey , if you say it 's all good , it must be all good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no.
but it sure does cool down the idea of "freedom of association"... but hey, if you say it's all good, it must be all good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30349620</id>
	<title>Coincidence?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260124860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I started downloading all of those files, as well as a few others.</p><p>About 10 minutes after midnight, my connection goes dead.  I switch on the wireless and hopscotch via the neighborhood, and my service is all paid up, no glitches, no problems.  And nobody else-hence the connection via the neighborhood-is having any problems.</p><p>Huh.</p><p>Let's see if I get a knock on the door sometime tonight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I started downloading all of those files , as well as a few others.About 10 minutes after midnight , my connection goes dead .
I switch on the wireless and hopscotch via the neighborhood , and my service is all paid up , no glitches , no problems .
And nobody else-hence the connection via the neighborhood-is having any problems.Huh.Let 's see if I get a knock on the door sometime tonight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I started downloading all of those files, as well as a few others.About 10 minutes after midnight, my connection goes dead.
I switch on the wireless and hopscotch via the neighborhood, and my service is all paid up, no glitches, no problems.
And nobody else-hence the connection via the neighborhood-is having any problems.Huh.Let's see if I get a knock on the door sometime tonight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30362376</id>
	<title>Re:Tempest in a tea cup</title>
	<author>webweave</author>
	<datestamp>1260214620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chilling isn't it? We are truly seen as peasants by these organizations. They'll sell out any Joe for a pitiful $30.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chilling is n't it ?
We are truly seen as peasants by these organizations .
They 'll sell out any Joe for a pitiful $ 30 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chilling isn't it?
We are truly seen as peasants by these organizations.
They'll sell out any Joe for a pitiful $30.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30347686</id>
	<title>Re:You've got to be kidding me</title>
	<author>Osinoche</author>
	<datestamp>1260107040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My God. You killed it, you killed Cryptome. You bastards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My God .
You killed it , you killed Cryptome .
You bastards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My God.
You killed it, you killed Cryptome.
You bastards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30350670</id>
	<title>Re:Tempest in a tea cup</title>
	<author>dmartin</author>
	<datestamp>1260181140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The really interesting part about National Security Letters is that they're fairly obviously unconsitutional, but were designed in such a way that the judiciary would never rule on their constitutionality. By making it a crime to reveal that you've received an NSL, you make it impossible for anyone to demonstrate that it existed in the first place, and thus prevent anyone who was targeted by them to establish standing to sue. So if someone tries to challenge it, the executive branch can argue correctly "You can't prove an NSL existed, therefor you can't prove you were harmed by NSLs, therefor you have no reason to sue".</p></div><p>It seems really easy to sidestep this. Take the NSL to a judge, or use it as evidence to sue. If they come after you for revealing the existence of an NSL there is your proof that it has impacted you and you have standing. If the courts rule that states secrets are justified, and that your action was indeed illegal then you are basically in trouble -- you have admitted blatantly violating the law and will probably be imprisoned. But if you should win and you can have it ruled the law was unconstitutional then the law you violated has no power anyway (the constitution in the US granting the government <b> limited</b> powers). So challenging it is risky, and would take someone with very strong principles (and a strong stomach) to see it through, but it is not the Catch-22 you make it out to be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The really interesting part about National Security Letters is that they 're fairly obviously unconsitutional , but were designed in such a way that the judiciary would never rule on their constitutionality .
By making it a crime to reveal that you 've received an NSL , you make it impossible for anyone to demonstrate that it existed in the first place , and thus prevent anyone who was targeted by them to establish standing to sue .
So if someone tries to challenge it , the executive branch can argue correctly " You ca n't prove an NSL existed , therefor you ca n't prove you were harmed by NSLs , therefor you have no reason to sue " .It seems really easy to sidestep this .
Take the NSL to a judge , or use it as evidence to sue .
If they come after you for revealing the existence of an NSL there is your proof that it has impacted you and you have standing .
If the courts rule that states secrets are justified , and that your action was indeed illegal then you are basically in trouble -- you have admitted blatantly violating the law and will probably be imprisoned .
But if you should win and you can have it ruled the law was unconstitutional then the law you violated has no power anyway ( the constitution in the US granting the government limited powers ) .
So challenging it is risky , and would take someone with very strong principles ( and a strong stomach ) to see it through , but it is not the Catch-22 you make it out to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The really interesting part about National Security Letters is that they're fairly obviously unconsitutional, but were designed in such a way that the judiciary would never rule on their constitutionality.
By making it a crime to reveal that you've received an NSL, you make it impossible for anyone to demonstrate that it existed in the first place, and thus prevent anyone who was targeted by them to establish standing to sue.
So if someone tries to challenge it, the executive branch can argue correctly "You can't prove an NSL existed, therefor you can't prove you were harmed by NSLs, therefor you have no reason to sue".It seems really easy to sidestep this.
Take the NSL to a judge, or use it as evidence to sue.
If they come after you for revealing the existence of an NSL there is your proof that it has impacted you and you have standing.
If the courts rule that states secrets are justified, and that your action was indeed illegal then you are basically in trouble -- you have admitted blatantly violating the law and will probably be imprisoned.
But if you should win and you can have it ruled the law was unconstitutional then the law you violated has no power anyway (the constitution in the US granting the government  limited powers).
So challenging it is risky, and would take someone with very strong principles (and a strong stomach) to see it through, but it is not the Catch-22 you make it out to be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346480</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345522</id>
	<title>Subpoena != search warrant</title>
	<author>LandruBek</author>
	<datestamp>1260091140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, and ooh, a subpoena is SO hard to issue!  No judge need be involved; prosecutors get to write them themselves -- motivated, perhaps, by nothing more than a hunch.</p><p>There's a huge difference between a warrant and a subpoena.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , and ooh , a subpoena is SO hard to issue !
No judge need be involved ; prosecutors get to write them themselves -- motivated , perhaps , by nothing more than a hunch.There 's a huge difference between a warrant and a subpoena .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, and ooh, a subpoena is SO hard to issue!
No judge need be involved; prosecutors get to write them themselves -- motivated, perhaps, by nothing more than a hunch.There's a huge difference between a warrant and a subpoena.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345076</id>
	<title>yahoo!!!</title>
	<author>chtank</author>
	<datestamp>1260131040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yahoo,hummm, tried them early on, did not like, will not use yahoo anymore. I fact, I was asked to use facebook, don't like them either, am about to unload them, too. It is like "texting", a total distraction and unsafe for any driver. I think I will remain with html, e-mail, and my blog (which I have neglected to keep up). I have no use for all the toys of Microsoft. In fact, I have had problems with meta on xhtml as on Bluefish and have gone back to html 4.01 without meta at all, but do use CSS. Too much junk is a bane to we dinosaurs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yahoo,hummm , tried them early on , did not like , will not use yahoo anymore .
I fact , I was asked to use facebook , do n't like them either , am about to unload them , too .
It is like " texting " , a total distraction and unsafe for any driver .
I think I will remain with html , e-mail , and my blog ( which I have neglected to keep up ) .
I have no use for all the toys of Microsoft .
In fact , I have had problems with meta on xhtml as on Bluefish and have gone back to html 4.01 without meta at all , but do use CSS .
Too much junk is a bane to we dinosaurs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yahoo,hummm, tried them early on, did not like, will not use yahoo anymore.
I fact, I was asked to use facebook, don't like them either, am about to unload them, too.
It is like "texting", a total distraction and unsafe for any driver.
I think I will remain with html, e-mail, and my blog (which I have neglected to keep up).
I have no use for all the toys of Microsoft.
In fact, I have had problems with meta on xhtml as on Bluefish and have gone back to html 4.01 without meta at all, but do use CSS.
Too much junk is a bane to we dinosaurs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346234</id>
	<title>Don't be evil</title>
	<author>shadowofwind</author>
	<datestamp>1260097020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While watching a presentation by a Google engineering exec a few months ago, I got the impression that selling information about Google users was at the core of Google's strategic vision.  Maybe I was extrapolating too far from limited data.  I'm cautiously favorable about Google as a company, and "don't be evil" is just the mindset that's needed for a company that has that much power.  But nearly every institution, cultlike, has the denial of its worst evil built into its expressed ideology.  Microsoft is all about innovation, authoritarian governments all call themselves "democratic republics", etc.  Google seems to have the potential to go either way.</p><p>Yes I realize that the main discussion is about Yahoo, but I think Google is more important, since they're a better company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While watching a presentation by a Google engineering exec a few months ago , I got the impression that selling information about Google users was at the core of Google 's strategic vision .
Maybe I was extrapolating too far from limited data .
I 'm cautiously favorable about Google as a company , and " do n't be evil " is just the mindset that 's needed for a company that has that much power .
But nearly every institution , cultlike , has the denial of its worst evil built into its expressed ideology .
Microsoft is all about innovation , authoritarian governments all call themselves " democratic republics " , etc .
Google seems to have the potential to go either way.Yes I realize that the main discussion is about Yahoo , but I think Google is more important , since they 're a better company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While watching a presentation by a Google engineering exec a few months ago, I got the impression that selling information about Google users was at the core of Google's strategic vision.
Maybe I was extrapolating too far from limited data.
I'm cautiously favorable about Google as a company, and "don't be evil" is just the mindset that's needed for a company that has that much power.
But nearly every institution, cultlike, has the denial of its worst evil built into its expressed ideology.
Microsoft is all about innovation, authoritarian governments all call themselves "democratic republics", etc.
Google seems to have the potential to go either way.Yes I realize that the main discussion is about Yahoo, but I think Google is more important, since they're a better company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345726</id>
	<title>I wonder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260092940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What it charges China and the EU? I am guessing that America is still getting screwed and paying top dollars for this, while both EU and China pay bottom prices. I mean, none of you really though that this was reserved JUST TO US GOV., Did you? It was Yahoo AND MS that sold information to the CHinese gov that put away one of their citizens. And yes, Yahoo and MS BOTH SELL to eu GOVs. Quietly, but they still do it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What it charges China and the EU ?
I am guessing that America is still getting screwed and paying top dollars for this , while both EU and China pay bottom prices .
I mean , none of you really though that this was reserved JUST TO US GOV. , Did you ?
It was Yahoo AND MS that sold information to the CHinese gov that put away one of their citizens .
And yes , Yahoo and MS BOTH SELL to eu GOVs .
Quietly , but they still do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What it charges China and the EU?
I am guessing that America is still getting screwed and paying top dollars for this, while both EU and China pay bottom prices.
I mean, none of you really though that this was reserved JUST TO US GOV., Did you?
It was Yahoo AND MS that sold information to the CHinese gov that put away one of their citizens.
And yes, Yahoo and MS BOTH SELL to eu GOVs.
Quietly, but they still do it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30347922</id>
	<title>I didn't realize it was so expensive</title>
	<author>calmofthestorm</author>
	<datestamp>1260108480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to violate my privacy that way. I'd have guessed a few cents, or 100 for a dollar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to violate my privacy that way .
I 'd have guessed a few cents , or 100 for a dollar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to violate my privacy that way.
I'd have guessed a few cents, or 100 for a dollar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344870</id>
	<title>We</title>
	<author>JustOK</author>
	<datestamp>1260129480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We the people is a law enforcement agency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We the people is a law enforcement agency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We the people is a law enforcement agency.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30353898</id>
	<title>Re:We</title>
	<author>DaleSwanson</author>
	<datestamp>1260205380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Without that ruling, it would have been up to the people to police Congress, and the level of apathy we see today would have never been attained.</p></div><p>I have to disagree that the level of apathy today would be affected by that ruling.  The level of apathy is directly related to how well people feel their lives are.  In the US virtually everyone has a high standard of living.  People simply won't care about things that don't seem to directly affect their day to day lives.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread\_and\_circuses" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread\_and\_circuses</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without that ruling , it would have been up to the people to police Congress , and the level of apathy we see today would have never been attained.I have to disagree that the level of apathy today would be affected by that ruling .
The level of apathy is directly related to how well people feel their lives are .
In the US virtually everyone has a high standard of living .
People simply wo n't care about things that do n't seem to directly affect their day to day lives.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread \ _and \ _circuses [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without that ruling, it would have been up to the people to police Congress, and the level of apathy we see today would have never been attained.I have to disagree that the level of apathy today would be affected by that ruling.
The level of apathy is directly related to how well people feel their lives are.
In the US virtually everyone has a high standard of living.
People simply won't care about things that don't seem to directly affect their day to day lives.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread\_and\_circuses [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345702</id>
	<title>Come again?</title>
	<author>Anachragnome</author>
	<datestamp>1260092700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fuckers are making US pay for our own data.</p><p>Selling us back our own shit.</p><p>Our taxes pay the cops, they milk the cops in exchange for OUR data.</p><p>Somebody sue these fuckers already...</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fuckers are making US pay for our own data.Selling us back our own shit.Our taxes pay the cops , they milk the cops in exchange for OUR data.Somebody sue these fuckers already.. .      </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fuckers are making US pay for our own data.Selling us back our own shit.Our taxes pay the cops, they milk the cops in exchange for OUR data.Somebody sue these fuckers already...
     </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344928</id>
	<title>and what makes you think /.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260129900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and what makes you this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. does not collect data and market it to pay their own bills?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and what makes you this / .
does not collect data and market it to pay their own bills ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and what makes you this /.
does not collect data and market it to pay their own bills?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30353558</id>
	<title>Re:Pricing makes it creepy</title>
	<author>DaleSwanson</author>
	<datestamp>1260204000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A friend of mine (a army colonel in Logistics) said that in government, it's often easier to spend a billion dollars than it is to spend fifty</p></div><p>You raise a good point here.  The fee probably does add some oversight.  I was in supply in the Marines and I will agree with that statement.  Perhaps another way to look at it would be that it isn't necessarily easier (as in less paperwork) to spend the larger sum, but rather that the recipient would be more willing to do whatever paperwork is needed to ensure they get that money.  If we had some legitimate but not pressing need for a small $50 item we might go without it simply because no one felt like getting the purchase authorized.  On the other hand when it came time for our multimillion dollar Office Depot contract you can bet Office Depot did whatever footwork was needed to make sure it went through without a hitch.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A friend of mine ( a army colonel in Logistics ) said that in government , it 's often easier to spend a billion dollars than it is to spend fiftyYou raise a good point here .
The fee probably does add some oversight .
I was in supply in the Marines and I will agree with that statement .
Perhaps another way to look at it would be that it is n't necessarily easier ( as in less paperwork ) to spend the larger sum , but rather that the recipient would be more willing to do whatever paperwork is needed to ensure they get that money .
If we had some legitimate but not pressing need for a small $ 50 item we might go without it simply because no one felt like getting the purchase authorized .
On the other hand when it came time for our multimillion dollar Office Depot contract you can bet Office Depot did whatever footwork was needed to make sure it went through without a hitch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A friend of mine (a army colonel in Logistics) said that in government, it's often easier to spend a billion dollars than it is to spend fiftyYou raise a good point here.
The fee probably does add some oversight.
I was in supply in the Marines and I will agree with that statement.
Perhaps another way to look at it would be that it isn't necessarily easier (as in less paperwork) to spend the larger sum, but rather that the recipient would be more willing to do whatever paperwork is needed to ensure they get that money.
If we had some legitimate but not pressing need for a small $50 item we might go without it simply because no one felt like getting the purchase authorized.
On the other hand when it came time for our multimillion dollar Office Depot contract you can bet Office Depot did whatever footwork was needed to make sure it went through without a hitch.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30348208</id>
	<title>So where should I keep my email?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260110700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously gmail is probably exactly the same in terms of being willing to give over all data.</p><p>Is there any free email provider who is known to not turn over your details so quickly?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously gmail is probably exactly the same in terms of being willing to give over all data.Is there any free email provider who is known to not turn over your details so quickly ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously gmail is probably exactly the same in terms of being willing to give over all data.Is there any free email provider who is known to not turn over your details so quickly?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344708</id>
	<title>Get what you pay for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260128400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Time for paid services with explicit privacy protection.  There is a good business case for this, I think, but will require thoughtful way to market to the masses.  Any ideas?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time for paid services with explicit privacy protection .
There is a good business case for this , I think , but will require thoughtful way to market to the masses .
Any ideas ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time for paid services with explicit privacy protection.
There is a good business case for this, I think, but will require thoughtful way to market to the masses.
Any ideas?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345208</id>
	<title>This is outrageous.</title>
	<author>maillemaker</author>
	<datestamp>1260132120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is outrageous.</p><p>If someone leaked that the USPS was steaming open letters for the government for $40 or whatever people would be going ape-shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is outrageous.If someone leaked that the USPS was steaming open letters for the government for $ 40 or whatever people would be going ape-shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is outrageous.If someone leaked that the USPS was steaming open letters for the government for $40 or whatever people would be going ape-shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346480</id>
	<title>Re:Tempest in a tea cup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260098520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The really interesting part about National Security Letters is that they're fairly obviously unconsitutional, but were designed in such a way that the judiciary would never rule on their constitutionality. By making it a crime to reveal that you've received an NSL, you make it impossible for anyone to demonstrate that it existed in the first place, and thus prevent anyone who was targeted by them to establish standing to sue. So if someone tries to challenge it, the executive branch can argue correctly "You can't prove an NSL existed, therefor you can't prove you were harmed by NSLs, therefor you have no reason to sue".</p><p>I just wish more of the Senate had understood what was really at stake and followed Sen Russ Feingold's (D-WI) lead. Because what was actually going on was that the executive succeeded in shutting out the judiciary from the judicial process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The really interesting part about National Security Letters is that they 're fairly obviously unconsitutional , but were designed in such a way that the judiciary would never rule on their constitutionality .
By making it a crime to reveal that you 've received an NSL , you make it impossible for anyone to demonstrate that it existed in the first place , and thus prevent anyone who was targeted by them to establish standing to sue .
So if someone tries to challenge it , the executive branch can argue correctly " You ca n't prove an NSL existed , therefor you ca n't prove you were harmed by NSLs , therefor you have no reason to sue " .I just wish more of the Senate had understood what was really at stake and followed Sen Russ Feingold 's ( D-WI ) lead .
Because what was actually going on was that the executive succeeded in shutting out the judiciary from the judicial process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The really interesting part about National Security Letters is that they're fairly obviously unconsitutional, but were designed in such a way that the judiciary would never rule on their constitutionality.
By making it a crime to reveal that you've received an NSL, you make it impossible for anyone to demonstrate that it existed in the first place, and thus prevent anyone who was targeted by them to establish standing to sue.
So if someone tries to challenge it, the executive branch can argue correctly "You can't prove an NSL existed, therefor you can't prove you were harmed by NSLs, therefor you have no reason to sue".I just wish more of the Senate had understood what was really at stake and followed Sen Russ Feingold's (D-WI) lead.
Because what was actually going on was that the executive succeeded in shutting out the judiciary from the judicial process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30347520</id>
	<title>Re:Takedown demand contradiction?</title>
	<author>jd2112</author>
	<datestamp>1260105960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Lawyer claims intellectual property rights on method to suck and blow at same time."</p></div></blockquote><p>
Microsoft claims prior art.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Lawyer claims intellectual property rights on method to suck and blow at same time .
" Microsoft claims prior art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Lawyer claims intellectual property rights on method to suck and blow at same time.
"
Microsoft claims prior art.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345870</id>
	<title>Uhhhh</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1260094260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think everyone here is very much missing the point: They are providing these pieces of information in response to lawful orders like subpoenas. They do not have the ability to say no to those, it is illegal and they would get in trouble. So why the price sheet? Because the law does not require that third parties spend money to cooperate with the police. You can bill them for the costs incurred. Hence, for large companies that get requests all the time, having a price sheet makes sense. That way there's not any debate about it. They say "Ok you want us to do X, it is going to cost you $Y."</p><p>I fail to see the big deal here. If Yahoo was offering to sell private information on the open market, ya that would be a problem, and would get them sued. They aren't. They are complying with discovery orders that they have no choice to, and charging for it as they are allowed to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think everyone here is very much missing the point : They are providing these pieces of information in response to lawful orders like subpoenas .
They do not have the ability to say no to those , it is illegal and they would get in trouble .
So why the price sheet ?
Because the law does not require that third parties spend money to cooperate with the police .
You can bill them for the costs incurred .
Hence , for large companies that get requests all the time , having a price sheet makes sense .
That way there 's not any debate about it .
They say " Ok you want us to do X , it is going to cost you $ Y .
" I fail to see the big deal here .
If Yahoo was offering to sell private information on the open market , ya that would be a problem , and would get them sued .
They are n't .
They are complying with discovery orders that they have no choice to , and charging for it as they are allowed to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think everyone here is very much missing the point: They are providing these pieces of information in response to lawful orders like subpoenas.
They do not have the ability to say no to those, it is illegal and they would get in trouble.
So why the price sheet?
Because the law does not require that third parties spend money to cooperate with the police.
You can bill them for the costs incurred.
Hence, for large companies that get requests all the time, having a price sheet makes sense.
That way there's not any debate about it.
They say "Ok you want us to do X, it is going to cost you $Y.
"I fail to see the big deal here.
If Yahoo was offering to sell private information on the open market, ya that would be a problem, and would get them sued.
They aren't.
They are complying with discovery orders that they have no choice to, and charging for it as they are allowed to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30348526</id>
	<title>How ironic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260113400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Issuing an invalid DMCA takedown notice for publishing a document that's clearly intended for pursuing copyright violators. They're just as bad as the people they're selling this information to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Issuing an invalid DMCA takedown notice for publishing a document that 's clearly intended for pursuing copyright violators .
They 're just as bad as the people they 're selling this information to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Issuing an invalid DMCA takedown notice for publishing a document that's clearly intended for pursuing copyright violators.
They're just as bad as the people they're selling this information to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30348502</id>
	<title>Law Enforcement ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260113100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By design is Evil!</p><p>Even the President of the United States of American pisses on the Constitution of the United States of America becasue the President "by design" thinks that he is above all laws, local laws, states laws, federal laws, Constitutional Laws, and any and all laws of other countries of the Earth.</p><p>Hay, Obama can order his Secret Service to kidnap any 2-year old child (he perfers male children for this) anywhere on Earth, for him to sodamize as he wishes.</p><p>And, Constitution, Obama pisses on the "Constitution."</p><p>Its his perogative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By design is Evil ! Even the President of the United States of American pisses on the Constitution of the United States of America becasue the President " by design " thinks that he is above all laws , local laws , states laws , federal laws , Constitutional Laws , and any and all laws of other countries of the Earth.Hay , Obama can order his Secret Service to kidnap any 2-year old child ( he perfers male children for this ) anywhere on Earth , for him to sodamize as he wishes.And , Constitution , Obama pisses on the " Constitution .
" Its his perogative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By design is Evil!Even the President of the United States of American pisses on the Constitution of the United States of America becasue the President "by design" thinks that he is above all laws, local laws, states laws, federal laws, Constitutional Laws, and any and all laws of other countries of the Earth.Hay, Obama can order his Secret Service to kidnap any 2-year old child (he perfers male children for this) anywhere on Earth, for him to sodamize as he wishes.And, Constitution, Obama pisses on the "Constitution.
"Its his perogative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344838</id>
	<title>Re:You've got to be kidding me</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1260129360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have a document describing search warrant compliance, and here you have<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. misrepresenting it as 'we sell your private information to the lowest bidder!'</p><p>Seems like a rational fear to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have a document describing search warrant compliance , and here you have / .
misrepresenting it as 'we sell your private information to the lowest bidder !
'Seems like a rational fear to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have a document describing search warrant compliance, and here you have /.
misrepresenting it as 'we sell your private information to the lowest bidder!
'Seems like a rational fear to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30350904</id>
	<title>Btw, lets teach the yahoo jerks something</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1260183960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we, the internet people, do NOT like being told off, leave aside such things. lets put the fucking document on every p2p platform so that it will go around forever. and upload it to every goddamn user generated content site.</p><p>fucktards. to think that they seemed to be compliant with the rising net culture of freedom and progress some time before<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we , the internet people , do NOT like being told off , leave aside such things .
lets put the fucking document on every p2p platform so that it will go around forever .
and upload it to every goddamn user generated content site.fucktards .
to think that they seemed to be compliant with the rising net culture of freedom and progress some time before ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we, the internet people, do NOT like being told off, leave aside such things.
lets put the fucking document on every p2p platform so that it will go around forever.
and upload it to every goddamn user generated content site.fucktards.
to think that they seemed to be compliant with the rising net culture of freedom and progress some time before ....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346476</id>
	<title>Google</title>
	<author>Meneth</author>
	<datestamp>1260098460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google is conspicuously absent from the list of companies. I wonder what their price list is like.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is conspicuously absent from the list of companies .
I wonder what their price list is like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is conspicuously absent from the list of companies.
I wonder what their price list is like.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344828</id>
	<title>Since there is no copyright notice...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260129300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... or other confidential markings in this document, I don't feel there is any reason not to public disclose this document all or in part.  In fact, I will do that just now...</p><p>For email:<br>"Yahoo! retains a user&rsquo;s incoming mail as long as the user chooses to store such messages in their mail folders and<br>the user&rsquo;s email account remains active. Yahoo! retains a user&rsquo;s sent mail only if the user sets their email account<br>options to save sent mail and has not subsequently deleted specific messages."</p><p>For messenger:<br>"For Yahoo! Chat and all forms of Messenger, Yahoo! has log information regarding the use of the services. Yahoo!<br>maintains a &ldquo;Friends List&rdquo; for users of Yahoo! Messenger and can determine from its logs the time and date that a<br>user logged into Messenger or Chat (in the prior 45-60 days) and the IP address used. Yahoo! also can retrieve<br>from its Chat and Messenger logs the names of the chat rooms that the user accessed and the Yahoo! IDs of the<br>other people with whom a user communicated through Messenger during the prior 45-60 days. In order to search<br>these logs, a Yahoo! ID and a specific time frame, preferably no more than three days, must be provided."</p><p>For flickr:<br>"If provided with a Yahoo! ID, Flickr URL, or Flickr NSID, Yahoo! has the ability to produce subscriber information for<br>the account-holder. As long as the Flickr account is active, Yahoo! has the ability to produce content in the account<br>&ndash; with associated upload IP addresses and date and time &ndash; as well as the email and Groups information for the<br>account."</p><p>For groups:<br>"Yahoo! maintains information about Group moderators, as well as an activity log for each Group. The Group activity<br>log is a transactional log that indicates when members have subscribed or unsubscribed from the Group, posted or<br>deleted files or polls, or other similar events. Not all Group activities are logged, however. For example, the reading<br>of messages or downloading of files or photos is not logged.<br>Although the Group Message archive maintains messages sent to Group members, the message archive does not<br>contain any attachments to the messages. Yahoo! does not maintain those attachments in any form.<br>For current Groups, Yahoo! retains information relating to the moderator, members, and the active contents of the<br>Files, Photos, and Messages sections. If a Group has been deactivated or deleted, information about the Group<br>may be preserved for approximately 30 days, after which the information may be deleted."</p><p>For geocities and other premium web services:<br>"For web-hosting<br>and domains, Yahoo! will have basic Yahoo! registration information about the user who posted the page. Yahoo!<br>also will have the active files that the user has uploaded to the website, including the date on which the files were<br>uploaded, and the domain-based email that is available to the user. Deleted email is not available."</p><p>And here is how much it costs:<br>"  Basic subscriber records: approx. $20 for the first ID, $10 per ID thereafter<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Basic Group Information (including information about moderators): approx. $20 for a group with a<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; single moderator<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Contents of subscriber accounts, including email: approx. $30-$40 per user<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Contents of Groups: approx. $40 - $80 per group"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... or other confidential markings in this document , I do n't feel there is any reason not to public disclose this document all or in part .
In fact , I will do that just now...For email : " Yahoo !
retains a user    s incoming mail as long as the user chooses to store such messages in their mail folders andthe user    s email account remains active .
Yahoo ! retains a user    s sent mail only if the user sets their email accountoptions to save sent mail and has not subsequently deleted specific messages .
" For messenger : " For Yahoo !
Chat and all forms of Messenger , Yahoo !
has log information regarding the use of the services .
Yahoo ! maintains a    Friends List    for users of Yahoo !
Messenger and can determine from its logs the time and date that auser logged into Messenger or Chat ( in the prior 45-60 days ) and the IP address used .
Yahoo ! also can retrievefrom its Chat and Messenger logs the names of the chat rooms that the user accessed and the Yahoo !
IDs of theother people with whom a user communicated through Messenger during the prior 45-60 days .
In order to searchthese logs , a Yahoo !
ID and a specific time frame , preferably no more than three days , must be provided .
" For flickr : " If provided with a Yahoo !
ID , Flickr URL , or Flickr NSID , Yahoo !
has the ability to produce subscriber information forthe account-holder .
As long as the Flickr account is active , Yahoo !
has the ability to produce content in the account    with associated upload IP addresses and date and time    as well as the email and Groups information for theaccount .
" For groups : " Yahoo !
maintains information about Group moderators , as well as an activity log for each Group .
The Group activitylog is a transactional log that indicates when members have subscribed or unsubscribed from the Group , posted ordeleted files or polls , or other similar events .
Not all Group activities are logged , however .
For example , the readingof messages or downloading of files or photos is not logged.Although the Group Message archive maintains messages sent to Group members , the message archive does notcontain any attachments to the messages .
Yahoo ! does not maintain those attachments in any form.For current Groups , Yahoo !
retains information relating to the moderator , members , and the active contents of theFiles , Photos , and Messages sections .
If a Group has been deactivated or deleted , information about the Groupmay be preserved for approximately 30 days , after which the information may be deleted .
" For geocities and other premium web services : " For web-hostingand domains , Yahoo !
will have basic Yahoo !
registration information about the user who posted the page .
Yahoo ! also will have the active files that the user has uploaded to the website , including the date on which the files wereuploaded , and the domain-based email that is available to the user .
Deleted email is not available .
" And here is how much it costs : " Basic subscriber records : approx .
$ 20 for the first ID , $ 10 per ID thereafter     Basic Group Information ( including information about moderators ) : approx .
$ 20 for a group with a     single moderator     Contents of subscriber accounts , including email : approx .
$ 30- $ 40 per user     Contents of Groups : approx .
$ 40 - $ 80 per group "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... or other confidential markings in this document, I don't feel there is any reason not to public disclose this document all or in part.
In fact, I will do that just now...For email:"Yahoo!
retains a user’s incoming mail as long as the user chooses to store such messages in their mail folders andthe user’s email account remains active.
Yahoo! retains a user’s sent mail only if the user sets their email accountoptions to save sent mail and has not subsequently deleted specific messages.
"For messenger:"For Yahoo!
Chat and all forms of Messenger, Yahoo!
has log information regarding the use of the services.
Yahoo!maintains a “Friends List” for users of Yahoo!
Messenger and can determine from its logs the time and date that auser logged into Messenger or Chat (in the prior 45-60 days) and the IP address used.
Yahoo! also can retrievefrom its Chat and Messenger logs the names of the chat rooms that the user accessed and the Yahoo!
IDs of theother people with whom a user communicated through Messenger during the prior 45-60 days.
In order to searchthese logs, a Yahoo!
ID and a specific time frame, preferably no more than three days, must be provided.
"For flickr:"If provided with a Yahoo!
ID, Flickr URL, or Flickr NSID, Yahoo!
has the ability to produce subscriber information forthe account-holder.
As long as the Flickr account is active, Yahoo!
has the ability to produce content in the account– with associated upload IP addresses and date and time – as well as the email and Groups information for theaccount.
"For groups:"Yahoo!
maintains information about Group moderators, as well as an activity log for each Group.
The Group activitylog is a transactional log that indicates when members have subscribed or unsubscribed from the Group, posted ordeleted files or polls, or other similar events.
Not all Group activities are logged, however.
For example, the readingof messages or downloading of files or photos is not logged.Although the Group Message archive maintains messages sent to Group members, the message archive does notcontain any attachments to the messages.
Yahoo! does not maintain those attachments in any form.For current Groups, Yahoo!
retains information relating to the moderator, members, and the active contents of theFiles, Photos, and Messages sections.
If a Group has been deactivated or deleted, information about the Groupmay be preserved for approximately 30 days, after which the information may be deleted.
"For geocities and other premium web services:"For web-hostingand domains, Yahoo!
will have basic Yahoo!
registration information about the user who posted the page.
Yahoo!also will have the active files that the user has uploaded to the website, including the date on which the files wereuploaded, and the domain-based email that is available to the user.
Deleted email is not available.
"And here is how much it costs:"  Basic subscriber records: approx.
$20 for the first ID, $10 per ID thereafter
    Basic Group Information (including information about moderators): approx.
$20 for a group with a
    single moderator
    Contents of subscriber accounts, including email: approx.
$30-$40 per user
    Contents of Groups: approx.
$40 - $80 per group"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346602</id>
	<title>Re:Shame</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260099240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That&rsquo;s a really primitive way of seeing it, but you&rsquo;re right.</p><p>In reality, as shame is entirely based on social conditioning, and has no base in biology, the shame is relative to the social mindset//world/group you live in. (Which does not have to be the same as that of the people you have contact with.)</p><p>For example: An nudist in a community of nudists, is not ashamed at all. Some are not even ashamed when they are not in that community.<br>And there is no right/wrong about it. It&rsquo;s all arbitrary. After all, all a bad reaction to seeing someone nude, is just in the head, and not connected to reality. (Except of course in case of real ugliness ^^)</p><p>In mass psychology, one sees these "mindsets/ideas/philosophies" like lifeforms, nowadays. In fact they act so much like like lifeforms, that it&rsquo;s hard to argue that they are not. They fight over resources, they grow and reproduce, they live and die. And most importantly, they transform/process things.<br>So in fact, we have not one, but <em>two</em> ways of reproducing. The biological one (making children), and the mental one (putting ideas in people&rsquo;s heads and doing things that will be remembered.) Which means that &lsquo;he lives on inside of us&rsquo; is more real that most people think.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Now to Yahoo: I bet you can easily identify the group/mindset that those people live in. And from there, go to the sources, the motivations, and all the aspects of it.<br>Yahoo may <em>know</em> that <em>you</em> might think it&rsquo;s shameful. Doesn&rsquo;t mean they do. They can easily just call you stupid and say you &ldquo;don&rsquo;t know shit&rdquo;. Everyone does it, because that &ldquo;mindset lifeform&rdquo; of course protects its own existence too. If you see people acting really aggressive and like it&rsquo;s about life and death, over things that are just simple argumentation...  That&rsquo;s exactly it.</p><p>And now, you can think about, what to twist and change where, to turn them into your mindset... Assuming you (healthily, but wrongly) still think that yours is the only right one and that there is such a thing as a global &ldquo;right and wrong&rdquo;.<br>(Your death is another one&rsquo;s advantage. His death is yours.)</p><p>Protip: Try to win. But don&rsquo;t expect others not to do the same.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That    s a really primitive way of seeing it , but you    re right.In reality , as shame is entirely based on social conditioning , and has no base in biology , the shame is relative to the social mindset//world/group you live in .
( Which does not have to be the same as that of the people you have contact with .
) For example : An nudist in a community of nudists , is not ashamed at all .
Some are not even ashamed when they are not in that community.And there is no right/wrong about it .
It    s all arbitrary .
After all , all a bad reaction to seeing someone nude , is just in the head , and not connected to reality .
( Except of course in case of real ugliness ^ ^ ) In mass psychology , one sees these " mindsets/ideas/philosophies " like lifeforms , nowadays .
In fact they act so much like like lifeforms , that it    s hard to argue that they are not .
They fight over resources , they grow and reproduce , they live and die .
And most importantly , they transform/process things.So in fact , we have not one , but two ways of reproducing .
The biological one ( making children ) , and the mental one ( putting ideas in people    s heads and doing things that will be remembered .
) Which means that    he lives on inside of us    is more real that most people think .
: ) Now to Yahoo : I bet you can easily identify the group/mindset that those people live in .
And from there , go to the sources , the motivations , and all the aspects of it.Yahoo may know that you might think it    s shameful .
Doesn    t mean they do .
They can easily just call you stupid and say you    don    t know shit    .
Everyone does it , because that    mindset lifeform    of course protects its own existence too .
If you see people acting really aggressive and like it    s about life and death , over things that are just simple argumentation... That    s exactly it.And now , you can think about , what to twist and change where , to turn them into your mindset... Assuming you ( healthily , but wrongly ) still think that yours is the only right one and that there is such a thing as a global    right and wrong    .
( Your death is another one    s advantage .
His death is yours .
) Protip : Try to win .
But don    t expect others not to do the same .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That’s a really primitive way of seeing it, but you’re right.In reality, as shame is entirely based on social conditioning, and has no base in biology, the shame is relative to the social mindset//world/group you live in.
(Which does not have to be the same as that of the people you have contact with.
)For example: An nudist in a community of nudists, is not ashamed at all.
Some are not even ashamed when they are not in that community.And there is no right/wrong about it.
It’s all arbitrary.
After all, all a bad reaction to seeing someone nude, is just in the head, and not connected to reality.
(Except of course in case of real ugliness ^^)In mass psychology, one sees these "mindsets/ideas/philosophies" like lifeforms, nowadays.
In fact they act so much like like lifeforms, that it’s hard to argue that they are not.
They fight over resources, they grow and reproduce, they live and die.
And most importantly, they transform/process things.So in fact, we have not one, but two ways of reproducing.
The biological one (making children), and the mental one (putting ideas in people’s heads and doing things that will be remembered.
) Which means that ‘he lives on inside of us’ is more real that most people think.
:)Now to Yahoo: I bet you can easily identify the group/mindset that those people live in.
And from there, go to the sources, the motivations, and all the aspects of it.Yahoo may know that you might think it’s shameful.
Doesn’t mean they do.
They can easily just call you stupid and say you “don’t know shit”.
Everyone does it, because that “mindset lifeform” of course protects its own existence too.
If you see people acting really aggressive and like it’s about life and death, over things that are just simple argumentation...  That’s exactly it.And now, you can think about, what to twist and change where, to turn them into your mindset... Assuming you (healthily, but wrongly) still think that yours is the only right one and that there is such a thing as a global “right and wrong”.
(Your death is another one’s advantage.
His death is yours.
)Protip: Try to win.
But don’t expect others not to do the same.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345184</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345258</id>
	<title>Re:Tempest in a tea cup</title>
	<author>vxice</author>
	<datestamp>1260132480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OK, I spoke too soon before I read the document.  The document appears to contain approximations for the cost of supplying the requested information which they are required to be reimbursed for according to the document itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , I spoke too soon before I read the document .
The document appears to contain approximations for the cost of supplying the requested information which they are required to be reimbursed for according to the document itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, I spoke too soon before I read the document.
The document appears to contain approximations for the cost of supplying the requested information which they are required to be reimbursed for according to the document itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30350262</id>
	<title>How to make a bad reputation worse</title>
	<author>rakslice</author>
	<datestamp>1260219480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since alienating your userbase isn't enough, after the memos leak and the inflammatory discussions start, make sure to send some 11th hour DMCA requests to widely read net personalities. You wouldn't want your real customers, by which I mean advertisers, to think that the people steering the ship actually understand the dynamics of the Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since alienating your userbase is n't enough , after the memos leak and the inflammatory discussions start , make sure to send some 11th hour DMCA requests to widely read net personalities .
You would n't want your real customers , by which I mean advertisers , to think that the people steering the ship actually understand the dynamics of the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since alienating your userbase isn't enough, after the memos leak and the inflammatory discussions start, make sure to send some 11th hour DMCA requests to widely read net personalities.
You wouldn't want your real customers, by which I mean advertisers, to think that the people steering the ship actually understand the dynamics of the Internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30347232</id>
	<title>Detect taps on Sprint</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260103920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice.  On Sprint, make sure you have a password set for your voicemail and you can get tipped out that you are being tapped.</p><p>In order to access stored voicemail, the subscriber&rsquo;s password must be reset/changed by Sprint. When the password is changed, the subscriber will not be able to access his/her voicemail and this procedure is not transparent to the subscriber.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice .
On Sprint , make sure you have a password set for your voicemail and you can get tipped out that you are being tapped.In order to access stored voicemail , the subscriber    s password must be reset/changed by Sprint .
When the password is changed , the subscriber will not be able to access his/her voicemail and this procedure is not transparent to the subscriber .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice.
On Sprint, make sure you have a password set for your voicemail and you can get tipped out that you are being tapped.In order to access stored voicemail, the subscriber’s password must be reset/changed by Sprint.
When the password is changed, the subscriber will not be able to access his/her voicemail and this procedure is not transparent to the subscriber.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345038</id>
	<title>Re:Tempest in a tea cup</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260130680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to read the document and assume nothing nefarious is going on, it is easy to take that view.  The document never specifies what a law enforcement entity is, or what the guidelines are for what warrants are needed to get information.  The document also describes prices for getting information on groups.  I haven't used Yahoo! groups for close to five years, but I'm probably still listed as a member of a few.  Has anyone uploaded any child porn to these groups since then?  Check out this summary of the document:<a href="http://elwsoftware.com/wordpress/uncategorized/the-yahoo-compliance-guide-for-law-enforcement/" title="elwsoftware.com" rel="nofollow">http://elwsoftware.com/wordpress/uncategorized/the-yahoo-compliance-guide-for-law-enforcement/</a> [elwsoftware.com]</p><p>A major company (Yahoo!) offers volume discounts to law enforcement "entities"! $20 for the first ID, $10 for additional IDs.  Seems more like Yahoo! is selling this info to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to read the document and assume nothing nefarious is going on , it is easy to take that view .
The document never specifies what a law enforcement entity is , or what the guidelines are for what warrants are needed to get information .
The document also describes prices for getting information on groups .
I have n't used Yahoo !
groups for close to five years , but I 'm probably still listed as a member of a few .
Has anyone uploaded any child porn to these groups since then ?
Check out this summary of the document : http : //elwsoftware.com/wordpress/uncategorized/the-yahoo-compliance-guide-for-law-enforcement/ [ elwsoftware.com ] A major company ( Yahoo !
) offers volume discounts to law enforcement " entities " !
$ 20 for the first ID , $ 10 for additional IDs .
Seems more like Yahoo !
is selling this info to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to read the document and assume nothing nefarious is going on, it is easy to take that view.
The document never specifies what a law enforcement entity is, or what the guidelines are for what warrants are needed to get information.
The document also describes prices for getting information on groups.
I haven't used Yahoo!
groups for close to five years, but I'm probably still listed as a member of a few.
Has anyone uploaded any child porn to these groups since then?
Check out this summary of the document:http://elwsoftware.com/wordpress/uncategorized/the-yahoo-compliance-guide-for-law-enforcement/ [elwsoftware.com]A major company (Yahoo!
) offers volume discounts to law enforcement "entities"!
$20 for the first ID, $10 for additional IDs.
Seems more like Yahoo!
is selling this info to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346024</id>
	<title>Wheres my cut?</title>
	<author>9mm Censor</author>
	<datestamp>1260095640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I copyright all my emails shouldn't I get a taste when the spooks read my email?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I copyright all my emails should n't I get a taste when the spooks read my email ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I copyright all my emails shouldn't I get a taste when the spooks read my email?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345232</id>
	<title>Re:Tempest in a tea cup</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1260132300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now go re-read them, especially this clause:</p><p>&gt; Requests for Airfone call record information via Subpoenas, Search Warrants,<br>Court Orders, Summons, and National Security Letters</p><p>Do you see that "National Security Letters" part? That's for the Patriot Act, which requires no court order whatsoeve and for which revealing to anyone that you've received such a notice is illegal. There is, so far, no required judicial oversight for such orders: it's an amazing loophole for unscrupulous federal agencies, including those which have no business in domestic investigations such as the NSA, to use. And since companies such as AT&amp;T have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to cooperate with law enforcement in secret, warrant-free wiretaps with their whistleblower exposed secret fiber-optic taps on core network trunks, rest assured that you have \_no\_ way of assuring that these monitoring tools haven't been misued.</p><p>It's nice to see the pricelist, though, so we have an idea of just how cheap and easy and wholesale such orders are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now go re-read them , especially this clause : &gt; Requests for Airfone call record information via Subpoenas , Search Warrants,Court Orders , Summons , and National Security LettersDo you see that " National Security Letters " part ?
That 's for the Patriot Act , which requires no court order whatsoeve and for which revealing to anyone that you 've received such a notice is illegal .
There is , so far , no required judicial oversight for such orders : it 's an amazing loophole for unscrupulous federal agencies , including those which have no business in domestic investigations such as the NSA , to use .
And since companies such as AT&amp;T have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to cooperate with law enforcement in secret , warrant-free wiretaps with their whistleblower exposed secret fiber-optic taps on core network trunks , rest assured that you have \ _no \ _ way of assuring that these monitoring tools have n't been misued.It 's nice to see the pricelist , though , so we have an idea of just how cheap and easy and wholesale such orders are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now go re-read them, especially this clause:&gt; Requests for Airfone call record information via Subpoenas, Search Warrants,Court Orders, Summons, and National Security LettersDo you see that "National Security Letters" part?
That's for the Patriot Act, which requires no court order whatsoeve and for which revealing to anyone that you've received such a notice is illegal.
There is, so far, no required judicial oversight for such orders: it's an amazing loophole for unscrupulous federal agencies, including those which have no business in domestic investigations such as the NSA, to use.
And since companies such as AT&amp;T have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to cooperate with law enforcement in secret, warrant-free wiretaps with their whistleblower exposed secret fiber-optic taps on core network trunks, rest assured that you have \_no\_ way of assuring that these monitoring tools haven't been misued.It's nice to see the pricelist, though, so we have an idea of just how cheap and easy and wholesale such orders are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346114</id>
	<title>Dynamic IPs</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1260096360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>most people use Dynamic IPs, so they can subpoena the IPs but they will get a lot of "false positives" to track down the owner of those Yahoo IDs. Most people do not have the same ISP they had in 1999 due to the great dial-up to broadband rush after the Dotcom bubble burst. You'll have grandmothers and teenagers be accused of stuff that some random stranger that shared a dynamic IP address with them did.</p><p>Thanks to the Patriot Act, the police, NSA, FBI etc can get the information without a search warrant. The Democrats lead by Obama had promised to remove the Patriot Act as soon as they took office, but why it is still a law, I'll never know. But then many of them voted to pass it when Bush was President anyway. Both the Democrats and Republicans are corrupt in that way.</p><p>By the way Yahoo uses web beacons to track web site usage and most users don't know how to opt out of that. I've opted out of it several times already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>most people use Dynamic IPs , so they can subpoena the IPs but they will get a lot of " false positives " to track down the owner of those Yahoo IDs .
Most people do not have the same ISP they had in 1999 due to the great dial-up to broadband rush after the Dotcom bubble burst .
You 'll have grandmothers and teenagers be accused of stuff that some random stranger that shared a dynamic IP address with them did.Thanks to the Patriot Act , the police , NSA , FBI etc can get the information without a search warrant .
The Democrats lead by Obama had promised to remove the Patriot Act as soon as they took office , but why it is still a law , I 'll never know .
But then many of them voted to pass it when Bush was President anyway .
Both the Democrats and Republicans are corrupt in that way.By the way Yahoo uses web beacons to track web site usage and most users do n't know how to opt out of that .
I 've opted out of it several times already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>most people use Dynamic IPs, so they can subpoena the IPs but they will get a lot of "false positives" to track down the owner of those Yahoo IDs.
Most people do not have the same ISP they had in 1999 due to the great dial-up to broadband rush after the Dotcom bubble burst.
You'll have grandmothers and teenagers be accused of stuff that some random stranger that shared a dynamic IP address with them did.Thanks to the Patriot Act, the police, NSA, FBI etc can get the information without a search warrant.
The Democrats lead by Obama had promised to remove the Patriot Act as soon as they took office, but why it is still a law, I'll never know.
But then many of them voted to pass it when Bush was President anyway.
Both the Democrats and Republicans are corrupt in that way.By the way Yahoo uses web beacons to track web site usage and most users don't know how to opt out of that.
I've opted out of it several times already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30352726</id>
	<title>I Had to comment really a rant im making it good</title>
	<author>daddycoy</author>
	<datestamp>1260200040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As in the goverment paying email providers to read peoples email thats not right and if it was right i should be giving the same right. And for yahoo you stink as a email provider i wouldnt think any better of you to hand peoples emails over for a low price, and i will say this people who do online crime more and likely doesnt use yahoo because yahoo stinks so much because even they have morals,unbelivable right. I want to see the results and how much money the goverment is spending to do something they shouldnt be doing unless a person got charged with a internet crime. Now a Pedo go read there emails noone cares,that goes even if they make Pedo remarks in a chatroom please read there email i beg you do something about them. Or if you see some idiot in a chatroom i can give you a name to look for he's on Ares P2P and goes by the name Lethal, he gets a kick out of talking big and harrassing people,by calling there home phone that is easy to get specially if they had a website and used the domain godaddy,they give that information for free and will help you get even more information the reason i know godaddy somone msn him from godaddy and godaddy does use msn in a form to communicate with you when you set up a website, well they did with my brother, so this same msn name pms me and ask this person name so and so has called us to get access to the account. then suddenly my brother msn's me did you do that im like no, they said they want your phone number im like i dont want them to have my phone number,then i thought this out and explain to my brother who could of done this hes like owe i said i want you to give them a number im gonna see how loyal godaddy is because i will hear of it for sure, i gave my neibors phone number and i knew he would stay on the phone with the idiot it he got the number from godaddy, to find out godaddy isnt loyal they gave him the phone number and hes like this person calls me and keep telling me i was some name i wasnt and keep on and on, i know my neibor he will argue till he dies, then he said this person hung up. then 10 minutes later he calls and starts making threats ill kill your children your wife etc etc,this was when you could use skype to call landlines for free btw, thats what he used, heres the priceless part he keep calling over and over but one time he thought my neibor would hung up he wouldnt say nothing hes like you there you there and this person named Lethal had him a party chat going on evidentally he had others on there who thought this was funny. I explained to neibor he was probably using skype and had several people on i said get me some info, i said to stop talking and dont say a word let him talk so he did exactly as i said and if he is stupid as i know he is he will think you hung up or forget your there and they will talk and be careless what they say,thats exactly what he did, funny to say the least, if i wanted to i could screw his life up bad but he's a kid and i feel sorry for him, thanks for his screwup i now know his address and everything. he said should i let the authorities know then i told him why he called and i gave godaddy your phone number etc etc. I knew he wasnt gonna harm you but he likes to make threats to do so, of the dozens of people he has done this to that i know of, why he gets a kick out of it i dont know but you should hear the shit he says. The first time he called was funny to the neibor do you remember when anyone could spoof a caller id online,he did this he acted like the fbi say to least comical and the crime that he was getting raided for was not possible for neibor because you would have to have a computer to do that, the crime was hacking priceless in its own meaning even he didnt know how to do that. so my neibor says so if you must come on this should be entertaining. then Lethal aka this kid ask are you scared, hes like scared for what and btw i left the door open for you and neibor made this comment boy my tax dollars are well spent,he also said especially getting raided and to beat it all for hacking i dont even own a compute</htmltext>
<tokenext>As in the goverment paying email providers to read peoples email thats not right and if it was right i should be giving the same right .
And for yahoo you stink as a email provider i wouldnt think any better of you to hand peoples emails over for a low price , and i will say this people who do online crime more and likely doesnt use yahoo because yahoo stinks so much because even they have morals,unbelivable right .
I want to see the results and how much money the goverment is spending to do something they shouldnt be doing unless a person got charged with a internet crime .
Now a Pedo go read there emails noone cares,that goes even if they make Pedo remarks in a chatroom please read there email i beg you do something about them .
Or if you see some idiot in a chatroom i can give you a name to look for he 's on Ares P2P and goes by the name Lethal , he gets a kick out of talking big and harrassing people,by calling there home phone that is easy to get specially if they had a website and used the domain godaddy,they give that information for free and will help you get even more information the reason i know godaddy somone msn him from godaddy and godaddy does use msn in a form to communicate with you when you set up a website , well they did with my brother , so this same msn name pms me and ask this person name so and so has called us to get access to the account .
then suddenly my brother msn 's me did you do that im like no , they said they want your phone number im like i dont want them to have my phone number,then i thought this out and explain to my brother who could of done this hes like owe i said i want you to give them a number im gon na see how loyal godaddy is because i will hear of it for sure , i gave my neibors phone number and i knew he would stay on the phone with the idiot it he got the number from godaddy , to find out godaddy isnt loyal they gave him the phone number and hes like this person calls me and keep telling me i was some name i wasnt and keep on and on , i know my neibor he will argue till he dies , then he said this person hung up .
then 10 minutes later he calls and starts making threats ill kill your children your wife etc etc,this was when you could use skype to call landlines for free btw , thats what he used , heres the priceless part he keep calling over and over but one time he thought my neibor would hung up he wouldnt say nothing hes like you there you there and this person named Lethal had him a party chat going on evidentally he had others on there who thought this was funny .
I explained to neibor he was probably using skype and had several people on i said get me some info , i said to stop talking and dont say a word let him talk so he did exactly as i said and if he is stupid as i know he is he will think you hung up or forget your there and they will talk and be careless what they say,thats exactly what he did , funny to say the least , if i wanted to i could screw his life up bad but he 's a kid and i feel sorry for him , thanks for his screwup i now know his address and everything .
he said should i let the authorities know then i told him why he called and i gave godaddy your phone number etc etc .
I knew he wasnt gon na harm you but he likes to make threats to do so , of the dozens of people he has done this to that i know of , why he gets a kick out of it i dont know but you should hear the shit he says .
The first time he called was funny to the neibor do you remember when anyone could spoof a caller id online,he did this he acted like the fbi say to least comical and the crime that he was getting raided for was not possible for neibor because you would have to have a computer to do that , the crime was hacking priceless in its own meaning even he didnt know how to do that .
so my neibor says so if you must come on this should be entertaining .
then Lethal aka this kid ask are you scared , hes like scared for what and btw i left the door open for you and neibor made this comment boy my tax dollars are well spent,he also said especially getting raided and to beat it all for hacking i dont even own a compute</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As in the goverment paying email providers to read peoples email thats not right and if it was right i should be giving the same right.
And for yahoo you stink as a email provider i wouldnt think any better of you to hand peoples emails over for a low price, and i will say this people who do online crime more and likely doesnt use yahoo because yahoo stinks so much because even they have morals,unbelivable right.
I want to see the results and how much money the goverment is spending to do something they shouldnt be doing unless a person got charged with a internet crime.
Now a Pedo go read there emails noone cares,that goes even if they make Pedo remarks in a chatroom please read there email i beg you do something about them.
Or if you see some idiot in a chatroom i can give you a name to look for he's on Ares P2P and goes by the name Lethal, he gets a kick out of talking big and harrassing people,by calling there home phone that is easy to get specially if they had a website and used the domain godaddy,they give that information for free and will help you get even more information the reason i know godaddy somone msn him from godaddy and godaddy does use msn in a form to communicate with you when you set up a website, well they did with my brother, so this same msn name pms me and ask this person name so and so has called us to get access to the account.
then suddenly my brother msn's me did you do that im like no, they said they want your phone number im like i dont want them to have my phone number,then i thought this out and explain to my brother who could of done this hes like owe i said i want you to give them a number im gonna see how loyal godaddy is because i will hear of it for sure, i gave my neibors phone number and i knew he would stay on the phone with the idiot it he got the number from godaddy, to find out godaddy isnt loyal they gave him the phone number and hes like this person calls me and keep telling me i was some name i wasnt and keep on and on, i know my neibor he will argue till he dies, then he said this person hung up.
then 10 minutes later he calls and starts making threats ill kill your children your wife etc etc,this was when you could use skype to call landlines for free btw, thats what he used, heres the priceless part he keep calling over and over but one time he thought my neibor would hung up he wouldnt say nothing hes like you there you there and this person named Lethal had him a party chat going on evidentally he had others on there who thought this was funny.
I explained to neibor he was probably using skype and had several people on i said get me some info, i said to stop talking and dont say a word let him talk so he did exactly as i said and if he is stupid as i know he is he will think you hung up or forget your there and they will talk and be careless what they say,thats exactly what he did, funny to say the least, if i wanted to i could screw his life up bad but he's a kid and i feel sorry for him, thanks for his screwup i now know his address and everything.
he said should i let the authorities know then i told him why he called and i gave godaddy your phone number etc etc.
I knew he wasnt gonna harm you but he likes to make threats to do so, of the dozens of people he has done this to that i know of, why he gets a kick out of it i dont know but you should hear the shit he says.
The first time he called was funny to the neibor do you remember when anyone could spoof a caller id online,he did this he acted like the fbi say to least comical and the crime that he was getting raided for was not possible for neibor because you would have to have a computer to do that, the crime was hacking priceless in its own meaning even he didnt know how to do that.
so my neibor says so if you must come on this should be entertaining.
then Lethal aka this kid ask are you scared, hes like scared for what and btw i left the door open for you and neibor made this comment boy my tax dollars are well spent,he also said especially getting raided and to beat it all for hacking i dont even own a compute</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30347974</id>
	<title>Just in case...</title>
	<author>Pig Hogger</author>
	<datestamp>1260108840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mirror <a href="http://rab.zapto.org/lugalle/yahoo-spy.pdf" title="zapto.org">here</a> [zapto.org].</p><p>(This text is just random oxdung to fool the stupidness filter on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mirror here [ zapto.org ] .
( This text is just random oxdung to fool the stupidness filter on / .
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mirror here [zapto.org].
(This text is just random oxdung to fool the stupidness filter on /.
).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345784</id>
	<title>Re:Pricing makes it creepy</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1260093480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's not that Yahoo occasionally complies with the authorities. It is that they have a pricing scheme for it.</p></div><p>Think that one through.  If there were no price list posted for the information, then any fool in a bureaucracy can request it and get it.  However, government bureaus being what they are, if you put so much as a $50 price tag on the information, you may be requiring said bureaucrat to jump through many hoops and have their actions questioned and tracked.  This tiny fee will likely annoy them and stop a very large proportion of inquiries.</p><p>A friend of mine (a army colonel in Logistics) said that in government, it's often easier to spend a billion dollars than it is to spend fifty.</p><p>I salute Yahoo's putting at least a speed-bump in the way.  It's something.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that Yahoo occasionally complies with the authorities .
It is that they have a pricing scheme for it.Think that one through .
If there were no price list posted for the information , then any fool in a bureaucracy can request it and get it .
However , government bureaus being what they are , if you put so much as a $ 50 price tag on the information , you may be requiring said bureaucrat to jump through many hoops and have their actions questioned and tracked .
This tiny fee will likely annoy them and stop a very large proportion of inquiries.A friend of mine ( a army colonel in Logistics ) said that in government , it 's often easier to spend a billion dollars than it is to spend fifty.I salute Yahoo 's putting at least a speed-bump in the way .
It 's something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that Yahoo occasionally complies with the authorities.
It is that they have a pricing scheme for it.Think that one through.
If there were no price list posted for the information, then any fool in a bureaucracy can request it and get it.
However, government bureaus being what they are, if you put so much as a $50 price tag on the information, you may be requiring said bureaucrat to jump through many hoops and have their actions questioned and tracked.
This tiny fee will likely annoy them and stop a very large proportion of inquiries.A friend of mine (a army colonel in Logistics) said that in government, it's often easier to spend a billion dollars than it is to spend fifty.I salute Yahoo's putting at least a speed-bump in the way.
It's something.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30350092</id>
	<title>Re:You've got to be kidding me</title>
	<author>dave87656</author>
	<datestamp>1260217260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that Yahoo = Microsoft, is anyone surprised?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that Yahoo = Microsoft , is anyone surprised ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that Yahoo = Microsoft, is anyone surprised?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344704</id>
	<title>Re:You've got to be kidding me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260128400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like "releasing the photos will inflame the enemy and put our people in danger". The truth is a dangerous weapon and should only be handled by professionals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like " releasing the photos will inflame the enemy and put our people in danger " .
The truth is a dangerous weapon and should only be handled by professionals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like "releasing the photos will inflame the enemy and put our people in danger".
The truth is a dangerous weapon and should only be handled by professionals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30351852</id>
	<title>Re:Don't be evil</title>
	<author>secondhand\_Buddah</author>
	<datestamp>1260196080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are correct. Google's real product that it sells, is its users, much like a newspapers real product is the people that reads it. Everything one does while logged into Google enhances their product value because the demographic profiling just becomes better and more refined over time. Googles 'don't be evil' policy only relates to how they treat their users, which is a good policy considering their users are actually their product that they sell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are correct .
Google 's real product that it sells , is its users , much like a newspapers real product is the people that reads it .
Everything one does while logged into Google enhances their product value because the demographic profiling just becomes better and more refined over time .
Googles 'do n't be evil ' policy only relates to how they treat their users , which is a good policy considering their users are actually their product that they sell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are correct.
Google's real product that it sells, is its users, much like a newspapers real product is the people that reads it.
Everything one does while logged into Google enhances their product value because the demographic profiling just becomes better and more refined over time.
Googles 'don't be evil' policy only relates to how they treat their users, which is a good policy considering their users are actually their product that they sell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30349298</id>
	<title>Re:Pricing makes it creepy</title>
	<author>Anubis350</author>
	<datestamp>1260121560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>True in a lot bureaucracies of, not just govt. The large sums (what "large" is depends on the org) and the tiny sums are easy, the in between... At my old job, if I wrote a $10k or above budget request it was big enough to float to the top and likely enough to be important enough and attached to an important enough grant to go through very quickly. If I wanted to buy something small, under $100, I could go to my immediate boss and have it approved as petty cash in ~5mins. Getting anything (including my first contract) between the $100 amnt and the $10k amnt took *forever* to get processed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>True in a lot bureaucracies of , not just govt .
The large sums ( what " large " is depends on the org ) and the tiny sums are easy , the in between... At my old job , if I wrote a $ 10k or above budget request it was big enough to float to the top and likely enough to be important enough and attached to an important enough grant to go through very quickly .
If I wanted to buy something small , under $ 100 , I could go to my immediate boss and have it approved as petty cash in ~ 5mins .
Getting anything ( including my first contract ) between the $ 100 amnt and the $ 10k amnt took * forever * to get processed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True in a lot bureaucracies of, not just govt.
The large sums (what "large" is depends on the org) and the tiny sums are easy, the in between... At my old job, if I wrote a $10k or above budget request it was big enough to float to the top and likely enough to be important enough and attached to an important enough grant to go through very quickly.
If I wanted to buy something small, under $100, I could go to my immediate boss and have it approved as petty cash in ~5mins.
Getting anything (including my first contract) between the $100 amnt and the $10k amnt took *forever* to get processed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345230</id>
	<title>Re:You've got to be kidding me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260132300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Did you actually read the document (especially the part about narrowly-crafted subpoenas and court orders)?</i>

</p><p>I'm not clear who you're accusing of not reading.  Because there's nothing about warrants in the article and this was in the comments.

</p><p> <i>Sprint/Nextel is being picked on here ofr its automated web portal that allows agencies to extract all manner of data without FISA court warrants or any other oversight</i>

Part of the issue here is they're selling this data to law enforcement in the absence of any warrant or court orders narrow or otherwise.  Collecting data on people without a warrant is spying and these companies are making money off of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you actually read the document ( especially the part about narrowly-crafted subpoenas and court orders ) ?
I 'm not clear who you 're accusing of not reading .
Because there 's nothing about warrants in the article and this was in the comments .
Sprint/Nextel is being picked on here ofr its automated web portal that allows agencies to extract all manner of data without FISA court warrants or any other oversight Part of the issue here is they 're selling this data to law enforcement in the absence of any warrant or court orders narrow or otherwise .
Collecting data on people without a warrant is spying and these companies are making money off of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Did you actually read the document (especially the part about narrowly-crafted subpoenas and court orders)?
I'm not clear who you're accusing of not reading.
Because there's nothing about warrants in the article and this was in the comments.
Sprint/Nextel is being picked on here ofr its automated web portal that allows agencies to extract all manner of data without FISA court warrants or any other oversight

Part of the issue here is they're selling this data to law enforcement in the absence of any warrant or court orders narrow or otherwise.
Collecting data on people without a warrant is spying and these companies are making money off of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30359868</id>
	<title>Re:You've got to be kidding me</title>
	<author>Nutria</author>
	<datestamp>1260192480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Because there's nothing about warrants in the article and this was in the comments.</i></p><p>The<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. article was about Yahoo's price sheet.</p><p><i>Sprint/Nextel is being picked on here ofr its automated web portal that allows agencies to extract all manner of data without FISA court warrants or any other oversight</i></p><p>AFAICT, it's only GPS, data, and, at least in the US, you probably don't have a legal expectation of privacy of "location", since the cops can tail you the old fashioned way w/o a court order.</p><p><i>they're selling this data to law enforcement</i></p><p>That would be Sprint/Nextel.  Different article.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because there 's nothing about warrants in the article and this was in the comments.The / .
article was about Yahoo 's price sheet.Sprint/Nextel is being picked on here ofr its automated web portal that allows agencies to extract all manner of data without FISA court warrants or any other oversightAFAICT , it 's only GPS , data , and , at least in the US , you probably do n't have a legal expectation of privacy of " location " , since the cops can tail you the old fashioned way w/o a court order.they 're selling this data to law enforcementThat would be Sprint/Nextel .
Different article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because there's nothing about warrants in the article and this was in the comments.The /.
article was about Yahoo's price sheet.Sprint/Nextel is being picked on here ofr its automated web portal that allows agencies to extract all manner of data without FISA court warrants or any other oversightAFAICT, it's only GPS, data, and, at least in the US, you probably don't have a legal expectation of privacy of "location", since the cops can tail you the old fashioned way w/o a court order.they're selling this data to law enforcementThat would be Sprint/Nextel.
Different article.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345230</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346538</id>
	<title>OK, but I want to know about it</title>
	<author>careysb</author>
	<datestamp>1260098880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, if there's a law that requires ISPs and the like of turning over data to government on request, is there also a law that prevents such service providers of informing a user that some of their personal information has been released and to whom?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if there 's a law that requires ISPs and the like of turning over data to government on request , is there also a law that prevents such service providers of informing a user that some of their personal information has been released and to whom ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if there's a law that requires ISPs and the like of turning over data to government on request, is there also a law that prevents such service providers of informing a user that some of their personal information has been released and to whom?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344716</id>
	<title>Re:You've got to be kidding me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260128460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're just hoping someone will pay them to be quiet.  $250 seems about enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're just hoping someone will pay them to be quiet .
$ 250 seems about enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're just hoping someone will pay them to be quiet.
$250 seems about enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345834</id>
	<title>Cryptome costs</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1260093900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what does Cryptome charge to take down a document?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what does Cryptome charge to take down a document ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what does Cryptome charge to take down a document?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345184</id>
	<title>Shame</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1260131880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yahoo wrote in its objection letter that if its pricing information were disclosed to Soghoian, he would use it &ldquo;to &rsquo;shame&rsquo; Yahoo! and other companies &mdash; and to &rsquo;shock&rsquo; their customers.&rdquo;</p></div><p>It's hard to shame someone who doesn't already feel that they have something to be ashamed of. I guess we know Yahoo understands it's behavior to be shameful but continues to do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yahoo wrote in its objection letter that if its pricing information were disclosed to Soghoian , he would use it    to    shame    Yahoo !
and other companies    and to    shock    their customers.    It 's hard to shame someone who does n't already feel that they have something to be ashamed of .
I guess we know Yahoo understands it 's behavior to be shameful but continues to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yahoo wrote in its objection letter that if its pricing information were disclosed to Soghoian, he would use it “to ’shame’ Yahoo!
and other companies — and to ’shock’ their customers.”It's hard to shame someone who doesn't already feel that they have something to be ashamed of.
I guess we know Yahoo understands it's behavior to be shameful but continues to do it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345352</id>
	<title>Re:We</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1260133080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it were up to the people to police Congress, do you honestly think things would be better?</p><p>I'd stick around for your answer but my DVR is almost full and I have to start watching the rest of The Biggest Loser before I run out of space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it were up to the people to police Congress , do you honestly think things would be better ? I 'd stick around for your answer but my DVR is almost full and I have to start watching the rest of The Biggest Loser before I run out of space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it were up to the people to police Congress, do you honestly think things would be better?I'd stick around for your answer but my DVR is almost full and I have to start watching the rest of The Biggest Loser before I run out of space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345670</id>
	<title>Re:Get what you pay for</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1260092400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a few good reasons that "nothing to hide" is a crock of crap:</p><p>1.  The government is run by humans, which almost by the definition of the word are inherently fallible.<br>2.  The government, also by definition, has the power to disrupt your life/put you in jail/confiscate your goods,<br>3.  The above two combine to form a chilling effect upon your rights being exercised as you see fit.<br>4.  Just as with quantum mechanics, the government cannot snoop without causing side effects in what they're snooping on.</p><p>So plenty of people have a darn good reason to not want government nosiness even IF they are not breaking the law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a few good reasons that " nothing to hide " is a crock of crap : 1 .
The government is run by humans , which almost by the definition of the word are inherently fallible.2 .
The government , also by definition , has the power to disrupt your life/put you in jail/confiscate your goods,3 .
The above two combine to form a chilling effect upon your rights being exercised as you see fit.4 .
Just as with quantum mechanics , the government can not snoop without causing side effects in what they 're snooping on.So plenty of people have a darn good reason to not want government nosiness even IF they are not breaking the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a few good reasons that "nothing to hide" is a crock of crap:1.
The government is run by humans, which almost by the definition of the word are inherently fallible.2.
The government, also by definition, has the power to disrupt your life/put you in jail/confiscate your goods,3.
The above two combine to form a chilling effect upon your rights being exercised as you see fit.4.
Just as with quantum mechanics, the government cannot snoop without causing side effects in what they're snooping on.So plenty of people have a darn good reason to not want government nosiness even IF they are not breaking the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344768</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346654</id>
	<title>Nothing from Comcast</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260099480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was hoping to find the Comcast document since they are the ones providing my phone service.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was hoping to find the Comcast document since they are the ones providing my phone service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was hoping to find the Comcast document since they are the ones providing my phone service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344768</id>
	<title>Re:Get what you pay for</title>
	<author>colourmyeyes</author>
	<datestamp>1260128940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People will use whatever's free, and probably say they have "nothing to hide!" The truly paranoid (which I say without intending any negative connotation) will run their own services. Unfortunately 90\% of the email addresses you communicate with probably end in gmail.com, hotmail.com or yahoo.com anyway. That data is available on the other end, if in much more fragmented format. <br> <br>I agree with your idea, but I honestly don't think the masses will go for it. If enough concerned people do, it could be worthwhile. <br> <br>As a sidenote, your idea reminded me of <a href="http://www.rsync.net/philosophy.html" title="rsync.net">rsync.net</a> [rsync.net]'s privacy policies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People will use whatever 's free , and probably say they have " nothing to hide !
" The truly paranoid ( which I say without intending any negative connotation ) will run their own services .
Unfortunately 90 \ % of the email addresses you communicate with probably end in gmail.com , hotmail.com or yahoo.com anyway .
That data is available on the other end , if in much more fragmented format .
I agree with your idea , but I honestly do n't think the masses will go for it .
If enough concerned people do , it could be worthwhile .
As a sidenote , your idea reminded me of rsync.net [ rsync.net ] 's privacy policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People will use whatever's free, and probably say they have "nothing to hide!
" The truly paranoid (which I say without intending any negative connotation) will run their own services.
Unfortunately 90\% of the email addresses you communicate with probably end in gmail.com, hotmail.com or yahoo.com anyway.
That data is available on the other end, if in much more fragmented format.
I agree with your idea, but I honestly don't think the masses will go for it.
If enough concerned people do, it could be worthwhile.
As a sidenote, your idea reminded me of rsync.net [rsync.net]'s privacy policies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345086</id>
	<title>Re:We</title>
	<author>lwsimon</author>
	<datestamp>1260131040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the US, the people are the final authority on what is right and wrong, Constitutional or not.</p><p>In my opinion, Marbury v. Madison was a terrible ruling, and the beginning of the American decline.  Without that ruling, it would have been up to the people to police Congress, and the level of apathy we see today would have never been attained.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US , the people are the final authority on what is right and wrong , Constitutional or not.In my opinion , Marbury v. Madison was a terrible ruling , and the beginning of the American decline .
Without that ruling , it would have been up to the people to police Congress , and the level of apathy we see today would have never been attained .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US, the people are the final authority on what is right and wrong, Constitutional or not.In my opinion, Marbury v. Madison was a terrible ruling, and the beginning of the American decline.
Without that ruling, it would have been up to the people to police Congress, and the level of apathy we see today would have never been attained.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345068</id>
	<title>Re:Tempest in a tea cup</title>
	<author>Grygus</author>
	<datestamp>1260130980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc\_sec\_18\_00002706----000-.html" title="cornell.edu" rel="nofollow">Yes.</a> [cornell.edu]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
[ cornell.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
[cornell.edu]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30350894</id>
	<title>Yahoo is done for.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1260183780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nothing can bring them back. maybe only getting totally sold to google can establish trust in them from now on. horrible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nothing can bring them back .
maybe only getting totally sold to google can establish trust in them from now on .
horrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nothing can bring them back.
maybe only getting totally sold to google can establish trust in them from now on.
horrible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30350670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346480
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30353558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30362376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30351170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30359868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30347686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30356806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345208
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30347520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30350942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30353898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30351852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30350092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30349298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344818
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30350262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_06_1724208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_1724208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30347520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_1724208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30353898
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_1724208.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30351852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_1724208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_1724208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_1724208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_1724208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30349620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_1724208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345670
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_1724208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30350262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344764
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30356806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345834
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30351170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346378
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344886
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345230
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30359868
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30347686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30350092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_1724208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345784
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30349298
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30353558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345232
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30362376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30346480
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30350670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30344874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30350942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_1724208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345118
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_1724208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30345558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_06_1724208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_06_1724208.30348526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
