<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_10_0224204</id>
	<title>Biometric Face Recognition At Your Local Mall</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1260472140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>dippityfisch writes <i>"The Sydney Morning Herald reports that <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/no-place-for-crooks-to-hide-20091208-khqk.html">face recognition is being considered at Westfield's Sydney mall</a> to catch offenders. The identification system matches images captured by surveillance cameras to an existing database of faces. Police said they could not comment on the center's intentions, but would welcome any move to improve security and technology in the area."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>dippityfisch writes " The Sydney Morning Herald reports that face recognition is being considered at Westfield 's Sydney mall to catch offenders .
The identification system matches images captured by surveillance cameras to an existing database of faces .
Police said they could not comment on the center 's intentions , but would welcome any move to improve security and technology in the area .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dippityfisch writes "The Sydney Morning Herald reports that face recognition is being considered at Westfield's Sydney mall to catch offenders.
The identification system matches images captured by surveillance cameras to an existing database of faces.
Police said they could not comment on the center's intentions, but would welcome any move to improve security and technology in the area.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30391026</id>
	<title>I saw this movie...</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1260471000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this the one where Tom Cruise gets his eyes replaced with new ones to avoid being detected with retinal scans?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this the one where Tom Cruise gets his eyes replaced with new ones to avoid being detected with retinal scans ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this the one where Tom Cruise gets his eyes replaced with new ones to avoid being detected with retinal scans?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385726</id>
	<title>Video Surveillance is Useless</title>
	<author>S3D</author>
	<datestamp>1260478740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.csse.uwa.edu.au/~pk/Research/VideoIsUselessANZFSS/index.html" title="uwa.edu.au">Video Surveillance is Useless</a> [uwa.edu.au]
Presentation from prominent computer vision researcher, inventor of phase <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase\_correlation" title="wikipedia.org">correlation method</a> [wikipedia.org]
It basically saying, that on current tech level video surveillance is useless for face identification. What follow is that it's actually harmful, due to wrong impression of it's reliability.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Video Surveillance is Useless [ uwa.edu.au ] Presentation from prominent computer vision researcher , inventor of phase correlation method [ wikipedia.org ] It basically saying , that on current tech level video surveillance is useless for face identification .
What follow is that it 's actually harmful , due to wrong impression of it 's reliability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Video Surveillance is Useless [uwa.edu.au]
Presentation from prominent computer vision researcher, inventor of phase correlation method [wikipedia.org]
It basically saying, that on current tech level video surveillance is useless for face identification.
What follow is that it's actually harmful, due to wrong impression of it's reliability.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387394</id>
	<title>I bet you still can't take photos</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1260456300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I bet the mall owners state "privacy" as the reason and can't see the irony.  Classy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I bet the mall owners state " privacy " as the reason and ca n't see the irony .
Classy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I bet the mall owners state "privacy" as the reason and can't see the irony.
Classy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385702</id>
	<title>"Existing database of faces"...?</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1260478380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are we talkin' paparazzi photos here, then?  I'm sure the celebs Down Under will really appreciate being outed in public like that when they're just tryin' to blend in!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we talkin ' paparazzi photos here , then ?
I 'm sure the celebs Down Under will really appreciate being outed in public like that when they 're just tryin ' to blend in !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we talkin' paparazzi photos here, then?
I'm sure the celebs Down Under will really appreciate being outed in public like that when they're just tryin' to blend in!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386434</id>
	<title>Re:It all comes down to what you do with it</title>
	<author>Devout\_IPUite</author>
	<datestamp>1260445500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except for the number of sex offenders who slept with their 15 year old gf when they were 17. If sex offender status is going to be taken seriously we need to stop throwing the status at young couples. Until then, it's a mark that says "I might have done something bad." but so is being human.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for the number of sex offenders who slept with their 15 year old gf when they were 17 .
If sex offender status is going to be taken seriously we need to stop throwing the status at young couples .
Until then , it 's a mark that says " I might have done something bad .
" but so is being human .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for the number of sex offenders who slept with their 15 year old gf when they were 17.
If sex offender status is going to be taken seriously we need to stop throwing the status at young couples.
Until then, it's a mark that says "I might have done something bad.
" but so is being human.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386780</id>
	<title>Re:It all comes down to what you do with it</title>
	<author>Nazlfrag</author>
	<datestamp>1260450720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you seriously suggesting it's a good idea that anyone who has ever shoplifted should never be let near a shopping centre ever again in their life? In your think of the children rant did it ever occur to you that giving people who are in a position to abuse their authority tools to track and observe a childs every move is a terrible idea? Do you want your child to be living in a panopticon?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you seriously suggesting it 's a good idea that anyone who has ever shoplifted should never be let near a shopping centre ever again in their life ?
In your think of the children rant did it ever occur to you that giving people who are in a position to abuse their authority tools to track and observe a childs every move is a terrible idea ?
Do you want your child to be living in a panopticon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you seriously suggesting it's a good idea that anyone who has ever shoplifted should never be let near a shopping centre ever again in their life?
In your think of the children rant did it ever occur to you that giving people who are in a position to abuse their authority tools to track and observe a childs every move is a terrible idea?
Do you want your child to be living in a panopticon?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385820</id>
	<title>Sounds like a good reason not to shop there.</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1260436980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One false positive can ruin your whole day, week, or life.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One false positive can ruin your whole day , week , or life.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One false positive can ruin your whole day, week, or life.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30388012</id>
	<title>Re:It all comes down to what you do with it</title>
	<author>JohnFen</author>
	<datestamp>1260460260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know if sex offenders are limited from being in malls with kid play areas, but if they are, that would be one good application I would stand for.</p></div><p>Considering how easy it is to get on the sex offender list without being any sort of danger to children (or anyone else), I'm not so sure that would be a good thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if sex offenders are limited from being in malls with kid play areas , but if they are , that would be one good application I would stand for.Considering how easy it is to get on the sex offender list without being any sort of danger to children ( or anyone else ) , I 'm not so sure that would be a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if sex offenders are limited from being in malls with kid play areas, but if they are, that would be one good application I would stand for.Considering how easy it is to get on the sex offender list without being any sort of danger to children (or anyone else), I'm not so sure that would be a good thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385666</id>
	<title>I worked there</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260477720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, what a coincidence, I use to work/jointly-run a business in that shopping centre and crime wasn't that much of a problem to require measures such as this. Only thing I remember is an argument or so popping up around the movie theatres on the second floor every now and then or medical emergencies. Have to say it was a nicer place compared to other Malls.<br>
Still, with the money they make from the leases (absolutely crazy expensive) I suppose this is just going to be a marketable attribute they can add to their brochures.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , what a coincidence , I use to work/jointly-run a business in that shopping centre and crime was n't that much of a problem to require measures such as this .
Only thing I remember is an argument or so popping up around the movie theatres on the second floor every now and then or medical emergencies .
Have to say it was a nicer place compared to other Malls .
Still , with the money they make from the leases ( absolutely crazy expensive ) I suppose this is just going to be a marketable attribute they can add to their brochures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, what a coincidence, I use to work/jointly-run a business in that shopping centre and crime wasn't that much of a problem to require measures such as this.
Only thing I remember is an argument or so popping up around the movie theatres on the second floor every now and then or medical emergencies.
Have to say it was a nicer place compared to other Malls.
Still, with the money they make from the leases (absolutely crazy expensive) I suppose this is just going to be a marketable attribute they can add to their brochures.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387456</id>
	<title>Re:Solution?</title>
	<author>cstacy</author>
	<datestamp>1260456780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In many jurisdictions (such as mine), wearing a mask in public (except in inclement weather, or as required by a medical condition) is a criminal act in itself.</p></div><p>Yes, that's a crime where I live in the US (Virginia, and probably in Maryland and DC - not sure).  However, the other exception is that you can claim a religous purpose.  However, it may only be Islam -- no other religions are exempted!</p><p>(Which I think is a load of PC-oh-dear-give-the-Muslims-special-rights crap, and unacceptable, obviously).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In many jurisdictions ( such as mine ) , wearing a mask in public ( except in inclement weather , or as required by a medical condition ) is a criminal act in itself.Yes , that 's a crime where I live in the US ( Virginia , and probably in Maryland and DC - not sure ) .
However , the other exception is that you can claim a religous purpose .
However , it may only be Islam -- no other religions are exempted !
( Which I think is a load of PC-oh-dear-give-the-Muslims-special-rights crap , and unacceptable , obviously ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In many jurisdictions (such as mine), wearing a mask in public (except in inclement weather, or as required by a medical condition) is a criminal act in itself.Yes, that's a crime where I live in the US (Virginia, and probably in Maryland and DC - not sure).
However, the other exception is that you can claim a religous purpose.
However, it may only be Islam -- no other religions are exempted!
(Which I think is a load of PC-oh-dear-give-the-Muslims-special-rights crap, and unacceptable, obviously).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385842</id>
	<title>Waste of time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260437280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't they just chip and track us all? That would solve a lot of crimes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they just chip and track us all ?
That would solve a lot of crimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they just chip and track us all?
That would solve a lot of crimes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385646</id>
	<title>Media bias?</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1260477300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow.  I'm not familiar with "Sydney morning herald" so I'm not sure what I was expecting, but they certainly didn't meet it.</p><p>Half: "Police say this is great!"<br>Maybe a third: "Besides, it's already being used and you didn't even know it, so it can't be bad!"</p><p>And then: "Some academic loon has his panties in a twist over this"</p><p>Quickly followed by: "Another professor... of various more important things... says it should be used more though."</p><p>Australia often makes me feel better about the US.  Right now, they're making me realize that as bad as Fox news is, it could get somewhat worse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
I 'm not familiar with " Sydney morning herald " so I 'm not sure what I was expecting , but they certainly did n't meet it.Half : " Police say this is great !
" Maybe a third : " Besides , it 's already being used and you did n't even know it , so it ca n't be bad !
" And then : " Some academic loon has his panties in a twist over this " Quickly followed by : " Another professor... of various more important things... says it should be used more though .
" Australia often makes me feel better about the US .
Right now , they 're making me realize that as bad as Fox news is , it could get somewhat worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
I'm not familiar with "Sydney morning herald" so I'm not sure what I was expecting, but they certainly didn't meet it.Half: "Police say this is great!
"Maybe a third: "Besides, it's already being used and you didn't even know it, so it can't be bad!
"And then: "Some academic loon has his panties in a twist over this"Quickly followed by: "Another professor... of various more important things... says it should be used more though.
"Australia often makes me feel better about the US.
Right now, they're making me realize that as bad as Fox news is, it could get somewhat worse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385622</id>
	<title>Welcome....</title>
	<author>NeutronCowboy</author>
	<datestamp>1260476880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.... to the Panopticon. Where everything you do, can and will be tracked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.... to the Panopticon .
Where everything you do , can and will be tracked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.... to the Panopticon.
Where everything you do, can and will be tracked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385580</id>
	<title>Solution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260476100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One possible solution that I can think of, if you want to keep your privacy, is to wear a mask. Security should not have a problem with that, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One possible solution that I can think of , if you want to keep your privacy , is to wear a mask .
Security should not have a problem with that , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One possible solution that I can think of, if you want to keep your privacy, is to wear a mask.
Security should not have a problem with that, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386302</id>
	<title>Get ugly!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260443820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seem to remember a Judge Dredd story in which it became fashionable to be surgically altered to have exactly the same face as everyone else. Obviously this frustrated the ultra-fascist police force of the comics.</p><p>While cosmetic surgery isn't yet so causal a procedure in the real world as to make this a realistic scenario (although perhaps it isn't so very far away) I wonder what could be done with stage prosthetics and make-up.</p><p>If nothing else, the ultra-fascism is coming closer and closer to reality every day.<br>In the meantime, I'll just leave this here: http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe\_Photo/2008/02/10/1202700672\_7670/539w.jpg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember a Judge Dredd story in which it became fashionable to be surgically altered to have exactly the same face as everyone else .
Obviously this frustrated the ultra-fascist police force of the comics.While cosmetic surgery is n't yet so causal a procedure in the real world as to make this a realistic scenario ( although perhaps it is n't so very far away ) I wonder what could be done with stage prosthetics and make-up.If nothing else , the ultra-fascism is coming closer and closer to reality every day.In the meantime , I 'll just leave this here : http : //cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe \ _Photo/2008/02/10/1202700672 \ _7670/539w.jpg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember a Judge Dredd story in which it became fashionable to be surgically altered to have exactly the same face as everyone else.
Obviously this frustrated the ultra-fascist police force of the comics.While cosmetic surgery isn't yet so causal a procedure in the real world as to make this a realistic scenario (although perhaps it isn't so very far away) I wonder what could be done with stage prosthetics and make-up.If nothing else, the ultra-fascism is coming closer and closer to reality every day.In the meantime, I'll just leave this here: http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe\_Photo/2008/02/10/1202700672\_7670/539w.jpg</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386116</id>
	<title>Stop being stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260441480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The situation described in the summary is very different to you running facial recognition against people who walk up your stairs.</p><p>The shopping mall is a place where the public have been encouraged to go and spend their money. If it had been made clear right from the start that those entering the establishment would be logged and entered on a database, the business might not have got off the ground.</p><p>The announcement has been made only after the services available at the mall have grown to become a central part of many people's lives. The owner, whether they like it or not, has acquired increased responsibilities regarding the privacy and data retention issues.</p><p>What they do and how they do it is very much in the public domain.</p><p>What you photograph in the privacy of your own home is your business. Just don't let anyone catch you doing it in the mall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The situation described in the summary is very different to you running facial recognition against people who walk up your stairs.The shopping mall is a place where the public have been encouraged to go and spend their money .
If it had been made clear right from the start that those entering the establishment would be logged and entered on a database , the business might not have got off the ground.The announcement has been made only after the services available at the mall have grown to become a central part of many people 's lives .
The owner , whether they like it or not , has acquired increased responsibilities regarding the privacy and data retention issues.What they do and how they do it is very much in the public domain.What you photograph in the privacy of your own home is your business .
Just do n't let anyone catch you doing it in the mall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The situation described in the summary is very different to you running facial recognition against people who walk up your stairs.The shopping mall is a place where the public have been encouraged to go and spend their money.
If it had been made clear right from the start that those entering the establishment would be logged and entered on a database, the business might not have got off the ground.The announcement has been made only after the services available at the mall have grown to become a central part of many people's lives.
The owner, whether they like it or not, has acquired increased responsibilities regarding the privacy and data retention issues.What they do and how they do it is very much in the public domain.What you photograph in the privacy of your own home is your business.
Just don't let anyone catch you doing it in the mall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30391622</id>
	<title>Re:Solution?</title>
	<author>one2wonder</author>
	<datestamp>1260472980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about an IR mask?  You could always embed a bunch of smd ir leds into the brim of a cap, or affix some to glasses.  (glasses would likely be tougher to pull off as they'd need an external power pack located elsewhere)  Something like this:

<a href="http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/23/diy-ir-headgear-repels-security-cameras-attracts-security/" title="engadget.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/23/diy-ir-headgear-repels-security-cameras-attracts-security/</a> [engadget.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about an IR mask ?
You could always embed a bunch of smd ir leds into the brim of a cap , or affix some to glasses .
( glasses would likely be tougher to pull off as they 'd need an external power pack located elsewhere ) Something like this : http : //www.engadget.com/2008/02/23/diy-ir-headgear-repels-security-cameras-attracts-security/ [ engadget.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about an IR mask?
You could always embed a bunch of smd ir leds into the brim of a cap, or affix some to glasses.
(glasses would likely be tougher to pull off as they'd need an external power pack located elsewhere)  Something like this:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/23/diy-ir-headgear-repels-security-cameras-attracts-security/ [engadget.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386740</id>
	<title>Re:Solution?</title>
	<author>Bob Gelumph</author>
	<datestamp>1260450300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or <a href="http://pirateparty.org.au/join" title="pirateparty.org.au">join Pirate Party Australia</a> [pirateparty.org.au].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or join Pirate Party Australia [ pirateparty.org.au ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or join Pirate Party Australia [pirateparty.org.au].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30389102</id>
	<title>Real World Applications</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1260465240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given: Imagine a world were every personal movement is tracked by computer.  Every transaction is recorded.  Every communication, both written and spoken, is recorded.  Everywhere, 7/24.<br>
<br>
I think this was attempted by two governments already, Soviet Union, and Third Reich.  Google Search of these two governments brings up nothing current in this millenium.  Google Maps shows no location of these sovereign states.  Grandpa says he knows about 'em, but doesn't want to talk about it; then he starts to get angry.  In this day, and age, it's almost trivial to accomplish; even by third world nations.  Why would such a valuable tool as knowing everything about anyone be associated with two lost empires?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given : Imagine a world were every personal movement is tracked by computer .
Every transaction is recorded .
Every communication , both written and spoken , is recorded .
Everywhere , 7/24 .
I think this was attempted by two governments already , Soviet Union , and Third Reich .
Google Search of these two governments brings up nothing current in this millenium .
Google Maps shows no location of these sovereign states .
Grandpa says he knows about 'em , but does n't want to talk about it ; then he starts to get angry .
In this day , and age , it 's almost trivial to accomplish ; even by third world nations .
Why would such a valuable tool as knowing everything about anyone be associated with two lost empires ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given: Imagine a world were every personal movement is tracked by computer.
Every transaction is recorded.
Every communication, both written and spoken, is recorded.
Everywhere, 7/24.
I think this was attempted by two governments already, Soviet Union, and Third Reich.
Google Search of these two governments brings up nothing current in this millenium.
Google Maps shows no location of these sovereign states.
Grandpa says he knows about 'em, but doesn't want to talk about it; then he starts to get angry.
In this day, and age, it's almost trivial to accomplish; even by third world nations.
Why would such a valuable tool as knowing everything about anyone be associated with two lost empires?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385616</id>
	<title>It all comes down to what you do with it</title>
	<author>FlyMysticalDJ</author>
	<datestamp>1260476700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I could see this actually being somewhat useful, though I admit I didn't read TFA. If you ignore the possible invasion of privacy which is kind of moot in such a public place, then if the algorithms to match faces work well enough, you could use it to identify criminals. I don't know if sex offenders are limited from being in malls with kid play areas, but if they are, that would be one good application I would stand for. Also if someone loses a child in a mall, this could make finding said child a lot easier.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could see this actually being somewhat useful , though I admit I did n't read TFA .
If you ignore the possible invasion of privacy which is kind of moot in such a public place , then if the algorithms to match faces work well enough , you could use it to identify criminals .
I do n't know if sex offenders are limited from being in malls with kid play areas , but if they are , that would be one good application I would stand for .
Also if someone loses a child in a mall , this could make finding said child a lot easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could see this actually being somewhat useful, though I admit I didn't read TFA.
If you ignore the possible invasion of privacy which is kind of moot in such a public place, then if the algorithms to match faces work well enough, you could use it to identify criminals.
I don't know if sex offenders are limited from being in malls with kid play areas, but if they are, that would be one good application I would stand for.
Also if someone loses a child in a mall, this could make finding said child a lot easier.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386838</id>
	<title>Face Recognition = damn near useless</title>
	<author>Qlither</author>
	<datestamp>1260451320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Face Recognition is one of those great sale pitches from the same guy that also tries to hack cloud computing to you.

This post just tells me, there are still fools out there that fall for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Face Recognition is one of those great sale pitches from the same guy that also tries to hack cloud computing to you .
This post just tells me , there are still fools out there that fall for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Face Recognition is one of those great sale pitches from the same guy that also tries to hack cloud computing to you.
This post just tells me, there are still fools out there that fall for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386426</id>
	<title>Re:What the fuck?</title>
	<author>Devout\_IPUite</author>
	<datestamp>1260445380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This isn't police state, this is police corporation. In my experience people who make comments about the big government tend to vote in politicians that don't like regulating businesses. Regulating businesses is the only way to stop police corporations. This is the opposite of a police state, this is a free state that lets the corporations do whatever they want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't police state , this is police corporation .
In my experience people who make comments about the big government tend to vote in politicians that do n't like regulating businesses .
Regulating businesses is the only way to stop police corporations .
This is the opposite of a police state , this is a free state that lets the corporations do whatever they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't police state, this is police corporation.
In my experience people who make comments about the big government tend to vote in politicians that don't like regulating businesses.
Regulating businesses is the only way to stop police corporations.
This is the opposite of a police state, this is a free state that lets the corporations do whatever they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385590</id>
	<title>Penrith isn't in Sydney...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260476160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and the best algorithm to catch a crook there is to simply mark every image as a criminal. And a bogan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and the best algorithm to catch a crook there is to simply mark every image as a criminal .
And a bogan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and the best algorithm to catch a crook there is to simply mark every image as a criminal.
And a bogan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30388362</id>
	<title>Re:It's private property people ...</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1260462180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Still, it seems like a law requiring prominent notification of active computerized surveillance would be a good thing (I see a massive difference between identifying and logging each shopper, just keeping tapes, or having human eyeballs doing the work (a typical human won't be nearly as tireless as the computer)).</p><p>The language of the law might be a little prickly given that advanced compression does content analysis, but it should be the problem of the party choosing to do the surveillance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Still , it seems like a law requiring prominent notification of active computerized surveillance would be a good thing ( I see a massive difference between identifying and logging each shopper , just keeping tapes , or having human eyeballs doing the work ( a typical human wo n't be nearly as tireless as the computer ) ) .The language of the law might be a little prickly given that advanced compression does content analysis , but it should be the problem of the party choosing to do the surveillance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still, it seems like a law requiring prominent notification of active computerized surveillance would be a good thing (I see a massive difference between identifying and logging each shopper, just keeping tapes, or having human eyeballs doing the work (a typical human won't be nearly as tireless as the computer)).The language of the law might be a little prickly given that advanced compression does content analysis, but it should be the problem of the party choosing to do the surveillance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387780</id>
	<title>Marketing Ploy</title>
	<author>seven of five</author>
	<datestamp>1260459000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, they're <i>counting</i> on the false positives. Then you get a coupon for 10\% off anything in the mall.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they 're counting on the false positives .
Then you get a coupon for 10 \ % off anything in the mall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they're counting on the false positives.
Then you get a coupon for 10\% off anything in the mall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30398158</id>
	<title>Re:It all comes down to what you do with it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260463020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'd be pretty pissed if some fool tasered me while I was grocery shopping on a Saturday morning 'cos the camera erroneously ID'd me as the local pedobear or whatever..."</p><p>You are missing the purpose here.  The purpose isn't to forcefully stop crime as it happens, it is to decrease the percent of unsolved crimes.  Then, once people know they will be caught, they will be less likely to commit crimes.  The payoff wont be there.  There is an direct correlation between anonymity and crime.  They say privacy is dead.  If really true, so would be crime.  The fact that there is any crime is proof of our freedom!!!!!  Nobody likes traffic cameras, but everyone hates crime.  Grow up and realize they help fight each other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'd be pretty pissed if some fool tasered me while I was grocery shopping on a Saturday morning 'cos the camera erroneously ID 'd me as the local pedobear or whatever... " You are missing the purpose here .
The purpose is n't to forcefully stop crime as it happens , it is to decrease the percent of unsolved crimes .
Then , once people know they will be caught , they will be less likely to commit crimes .
The payoff wont be there .
There is an direct correlation between anonymity and crime .
They say privacy is dead .
If really true , so would be crime .
The fact that there is any crime is proof of our freedom ! ! ! ! !
Nobody likes traffic cameras , but everyone hates crime .
Grow up and realize they help fight each other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'd be pretty pissed if some fool tasered me while I was grocery shopping on a Saturday morning 'cos the camera erroneously ID'd me as the local pedobear or whatever..."You are missing the purpose here.
The purpose isn't to forcefully stop crime as it happens, it is to decrease the percent of unsolved crimes.
Then, once people know they will be caught, they will be less likely to commit crimes.
The payoff wont be there.
There is an direct correlation between anonymity and crime.
They say privacy is dead.
If really true, so would be crime.
The fact that there is any crime is proof of our freedom!!!!!
Nobody likes traffic cameras, but everyone hates crime.
Grow up and realize they help fight each other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386416</id>
	<title>Re:Solution?</title>
	<author>Devout\_IPUite</author>
	<datestamp>1260445140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where the heck do you live so I can stay away?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where the heck do you live so I can stay away ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where the heck do you live so I can stay away?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385870</id>
	<title>Re:How worthwhile is this, actually?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260437640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People on slashdot have been saying that for years and nobody did anything about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People on slashdot have been saying that for years and nobody did anything about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People on slashdot have been saying that for years and nobody did anything about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385718</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385816</id>
	<title>Re:It's private property people ...</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1260436980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAAL (I am not an Australian Lawyer) but I believe shopping centres and other retail premises are designated as <b>public places</b>. Because of this people can not be excluded for arbitrary reasons. If this was not the case it would be possible to throw people out for any reason at all (possibly in contravention of anti-discrimination laws) and say it was because we thought they looked like a criminal.</p><p>I think the best Westfield can do in this case is follow the suspects around either physically or on CCTV and wait for them to put a foot wrong. Either that or get a court order to keep them out but that would be short term and fairly expensive to obtain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAAL ( I am not an Australian Lawyer ) but I believe shopping centres and other retail premises are designated as public places .
Because of this people can not be excluded for arbitrary reasons .
If this was not the case it would be possible to throw people out for any reason at all ( possibly in contravention of anti-discrimination laws ) and say it was because we thought they looked like a criminal.I think the best Westfield can do in this case is follow the suspects around either physically or on CCTV and wait for them to put a foot wrong .
Either that or get a court order to keep them out but that would be short term and fairly expensive to obtain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAAL (I am not an Australian Lawyer) but I believe shopping centres and other retail premises are designated as public places.
Because of this people can not be excluded for arbitrary reasons.
If this was not the case it would be possible to throw people out for any reason at all (possibly in contravention of anti-discrimination laws) and say it was because we thought they looked like a criminal.I think the best Westfield can do in this case is follow the suspects around either physically or on CCTV and wait for them to put a foot wrong.
Either that or get a court order to keep them out but that would be short term and fairly expensive to obtain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385684</id>
	<title>Re:It all comes down to what you do with it</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1260478020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you ignore the possible invasion of privacy which is kind of moot in such a public place</p></div><p>I find fault with that logic.  You wear clothes in public, don't you?  That's privacy in a public place, it clearly exists.  Being automatically identified by a computer, WOULD eventually be used to track you between destinations and WOULD eventually be used for things which are not at all security related (such as in minority report, vending machines calling to you personally.)  You can and will lose your privacy in public and in private if this shit continues.</p><p>If you were being facetious, you need to be a little less subtle, or else it's just borderline trolling.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ignore the possible invasion of privacy which is kind of moot in such a public placeI find fault with that logic .
You wear clothes in public , do n't you ?
That 's privacy in a public place , it clearly exists .
Being automatically identified by a computer , WOULD eventually be used to track you between destinations and WOULD eventually be used for things which are not at all security related ( such as in minority report , vending machines calling to you personally .
) You can and will lose your privacy in public and in private if this shit continues.If you were being facetious , you need to be a little less subtle , or else it 's just borderline trolling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ignore the possible invasion of privacy which is kind of moot in such a public placeI find fault with that logic.
You wear clothes in public, don't you?
That's privacy in a public place, it clearly exists.
Being automatically identified by a computer, WOULD eventually be used to track you between destinations and WOULD eventually be used for things which are not at all security related (such as in minority report, vending machines calling to you personally.
)  You can and will lose your privacy in public and in private if this shit continues.If you were being facetious, you need to be a little less subtle, or else it's just borderline trolling.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385638</id>
	<title>It's private property people ...</title>
	<author>phantomcircuit</author>
	<datestamp>1260477180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about Australia, but malls in the US are private property.  They can and will issue a no trespass order against anybody who causes them problems (shoplifters mostly).</p><p>If you don't want to be entered into their surveillance system don't shop at their mall.</p><p>It's their property they can do what they want with it.  It's no different from me running facial recognition against people who walk up my stairs. (which i dont do btw..)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about Australia , but malls in the US are private property .
They can and will issue a no trespass order against anybody who causes them problems ( shoplifters mostly ) .If you do n't want to be entered into their surveillance system do n't shop at their mall.It 's their property they can do what they want with it .
It 's no different from me running facial recognition against people who walk up my stairs .
( which i dont do btw.. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about Australia, but malls in the US are private property.
They can and will issue a no trespass order against anybody who causes them problems (shoplifters mostly).If you don't want to be entered into their surveillance system don't shop at their mall.It's their property they can do what they want with it.
It's no different from me running facial recognition against people who walk up my stairs.
(which i dont do btw..)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387192</id>
	<title>Re:Solution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260454920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or just get new eyes, DUH</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or just get new eyes , DUH</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or just get new eyes, DUH</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385982</id>
	<title>Who the hell goes to malls anyways?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260439500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's so 1998. Only poor people who can't afford Internet, and idiots who can't figure out how to buy stuff online are the ones there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's so 1998 .
Only poor people who ca n't afford Internet , and idiots who ca n't figure out how to buy stuff online are the ones there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's so 1998.
Only poor people who can't afford Internet, and idiots who can't figure out how to buy stuff online are the ones there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385660</id>
	<title>Re:It all comes down to what you do with it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260477600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, yes. I should have been thinking of the children all along. This erosion loss of my own right to privacy is all good, because of the benefits to the children.</p><p>No matter that most kids are abused at their home or in the home of another family member or close family friend. Let's put security cams up in the mall. That'll solve it.</p><p>But seriously now, I'm not sure about the implications of these things: would a mall count as public or private? Generally, you wouldn't be allowed to take photos in a mall because it's private property, and they're obviously allowed to take photos of you, because they own the joint. However, what would Joe Public be able to do if he was flagged as a criminal through a false positive?</p><p>I'd be pretty pissed if some fool tasered me while I was grocery shopping on a Saturday morning 'cos the camera erroneously ID'd me as the local pedobear or whatever...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , yes .
I should have been thinking of the children all along .
This erosion loss of my own right to privacy is all good , because of the benefits to the children.No matter that most kids are abused at their home or in the home of another family member or close family friend .
Let 's put security cams up in the mall .
That 'll solve it.But seriously now , I 'm not sure about the implications of these things : would a mall count as public or private ?
Generally , you would n't be allowed to take photos in a mall because it 's private property , and they 're obviously allowed to take photos of you , because they own the joint .
However , what would Joe Public be able to do if he was flagged as a criminal through a false positive ? I 'd be pretty pissed if some fool tasered me while I was grocery shopping on a Saturday morning 'cos the camera erroneously ID 'd me as the local pedobear or whatever.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, yes.
I should have been thinking of the children all along.
This erosion loss of my own right to privacy is all good, because of the benefits to the children.No matter that most kids are abused at their home or in the home of another family member or close family friend.
Let's put security cams up in the mall.
That'll solve it.But seriously now, I'm not sure about the implications of these things: would a mall count as public or private?
Generally, you wouldn't be allowed to take photos in a mall because it's private property, and they're obviously allowed to take photos of you, because they own the joint.
However, what would Joe Public be able to do if he was flagged as a criminal through a false positive?I'd be pretty pissed if some fool tasered me while I was grocery shopping on a Saturday morning 'cos the camera erroneously ID'd me as the local pedobear or whatever...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386190</id>
	<title>Know your rights. Stand up for yourself.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260442200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the UK at least nobody can arrest or detain you unless they have reasonable grounds to do so. The fact that their system sounds an alarm is unlikely to be sufficient grounds if that alarm often gives false positives (goes off when no offence has been committed). If they do detain you and you have not committed a crime you can sue and will probably win the case.</p><p>From time to time a security guard asks if they can look in my bag because an alarm has gone off at the exit. If they ask politely and make it clear that they are asking me to help them, I sometimes let them look. If they speak to me as though I must comply, I refuse and walk on. If they persist, I tell them to arrest me if they believe I have stolen anything but that I will sue them if they do.</p><p>I have always been allowed to leave and nobody has looked inside my bag without my agreement.</p><p>It saddens me to see apparently respectable people submit to the public humiliation of a search, in the apparent belief that the security staff have the right to require it.</p><p>The shopping mall security staff might be able to ask you to leave but they cannot arrest you for a breach of their arbitrary rules unless those rules are backed up by law.</p><p>Stand up for yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the UK at least nobody can arrest or detain you unless they have reasonable grounds to do so .
The fact that their system sounds an alarm is unlikely to be sufficient grounds if that alarm often gives false positives ( goes off when no offence has been committed ) .
If they do detain you and you have not committed a crime you can sue and will probably win the case.From time to time a security guard asks if they can look in my bag because an alarm has gone off at the exit .
If they ask politely and make it clear that they are asking me to help them , I sometimes let them look .
If they speak to me as though I must comply , I refuse and walk on .
If they persist , I tell them to arrest me if they believe I have stolen anything but that I will sue them if they do.I have always been allowed to leave and nobody has looked inside my bag without my agreement.It saddens me to see apparently respectable people submit to the public humiliation of a search , in the apparent belief that the security staff have the right to require it.The shopping mall security staff might be able to ask you to leave but they can not arrest you for a breach of their arbitrary rules unless those rules are backed up by law.Stand up for yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the UK at least nobody can arrest or detain you unless they have reasonable grounds to do so.
The fact that their system sounds an alarm is unlikely to be sufficient grounds if that alarm often gives false positives (goes off when no offence has been committed).
If they do detain you and you have not committed a crime you can sue and will probably win the case.From time to time a security guard asks if they can look in my bag because an alarm has gone off at the exit.
If they ask politely and make it clear that they are asking me to help them, I sometimes let them look.
If they speak to me as though I must comply, I refuse and walk on.
If they persist, I tell them to arrest me if they believe I have stolen anything but that I will sue them if they do.I have always been allowed to leave and nobody has looked inside my bag without my agreement.It saddens me to see apparently respectable people submit to the public humiliation of a search, in the apparent belief that the security staff have the right to require it.The shopping mall security staff might be able to ask you to leave but they cannot arrest you for a breach of their arbitrary rules unless those rules are backed up by law.Stand up for yourself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385996</id>
	<title>*any* move? Yeah, exactly.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260439740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...but would welcome any move to improve security and technology in the area.</p></div><p>Then let&rsquo;s just kill all life in the area and fill it with self-replicating evolving robots! That is a 100\% sure shot to improve security and technology.</p><p>You said *any* move!<br>Don&rsquo;t lie and act as if that was not exactly the direction you were thinking of.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but would welcome any move to improve security and technology in the area.Then let    s just kill all life in the area and fill it with self-replicating evolving robots !
That is a 100 \ % sure shot to improve security and technology.You said * any * move ! Don    t lie and act as if that was not exactly the direction you were thinking of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...but would welcome any move to improve security and technology in the area.Then let’s just kill all life in the area and fill it with self-replicating evolving robots!
That is a 100\% sure shot to improve security and technology.You said *any* move!Don’t lie and act as if that was not exactly the direction you were thinking of.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386064</id>
	<title>Police welcome techno-police state.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260440820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Police should care about protecting citizens, or in case of a mall, customers, not welcoming deployment of as much privacy invading technology as possible in the name of "security". Technology doesn't equal security; it gives people the creeps, making them feel unsure and might very well result in them becoming more aggressive, not less. So, more technology is called for, because the cops can't be expected to actually get out in the street (mall) and engage in some old fashioned police work. Which is not, I appear to have to remind them, to kick or kill random people then claim "resisting arrest", or even to arrest people just so you can swab dna and then forget to file charges, or file some bogus charges only to drop them later.</p><p>Policing is very much a social job, even if it is that of a social janitor, putting a lid on people doing bad stuff to each other. Technology in itself is not a solution to people problems, and in many cases trying to deploy it like that is worse than the ailment. Mark these police guys and the mall management both down for a big fat FAIL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Police should care about protecting citizens , or in case of a mall , customers , not welcoming deployment of as much privacy invading technology as possible in the name of " security " .
Technology does n't equal security ; it gives people the creeps , making them feel unsure and might very well result in them becoming more aggressive , not less .
So , more technology is called for , because the cops ca n't be expected to actually get out in the street ( mall ) and engage in some old fashioned police work .
Which is not , I appear to have to remind them , to kick or kill random people then claim " resisting arrest " , or even to arrest people just so you can swab dna and then forget to file charges , or file some bogus charges only to drop them later.Policing is very much a social job , even if it is that of a social janitor , putting a lid on people doing bad stuff to each other .
Technology in itself is not a solution to people problems , and in many cases trying to deploy it like that is worse than the ailment .
Mark these police guys and the mall management both down for a big fat FAIL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Police should care about protecting citizens, or in case of a mall, customers, not welcoming deployment of as much privacy invading technology as possible in the name of "security".
Technology doesn't equal security; it gives people the creeps, making them feel unsure and might very well result in them becoming more aggressive, not less.
So, more technology is called for, because the cops can't be expected to actually get out in the street (mall) and engage in some old fashioned police work.
Which is not, I appear to have to remind them, to kick or kill random people then claim "resisting arrest", or even to arrest people just so you can swab dna and then forget to file charges, or file some bogus charges only to drop them later.Policing is very much a social job, even if it is that of a social janitor, putting a lid on people doing bad stuff to each other.
Technology in itself is not a solution to people problems, and in many cases trying to deploy it like that is worse than the ailment.
Mark these police guys and the mall management both down for a big fat FAIL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387550</id>
	<title>Re:It's private property people ...</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1260457320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In which case, there's a problem if vast swathes of open land are actually privately owned, with no way of public access.</p><p>If a shop owner doesn't want me in his shop, fine. But if the land owner who grants access to all the shops decides to refuse me permission onto the land - even though the shops might want my custom - that's a problem. It's no better than a troll stopping people walking across his bridge - even if it is his bridge, it's a problem if all your bridges are owned by trolls.</p><p>There are various ways round this, for example right of way laws (in the UK in some cases, people have a right of access, even if you own the land - it stops people buying up a load of land and blocking access), or simply regulating the amount of land in shopping areas that can be sold privately. The local authorities regulate all sorts of other things, such as who can sell alcohol, or needing planning permission to build - the idea that the authorities should sit by and let people's ability to access shops selling basic necessities be taken away, just because "it's a private corporation", seems mad.</p><p><i>It's no different from me running facial recognition against people who walk up my stairs. (which i dont do btw..)</i></p><p>It's not at all the same. We don't consider all "private" lands to be equal - there are all sorts of laws that apply in "private" areas such as shops (e.g., no smoking bans, discrimination laws, employment laws), that would never apply in your private home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In which case , there 's a problem if vast swathes of open land are actually privately owned , with no way of public access.If a shop owner does n't want me in his shop , fine .
But if the land owner who grants access to all the shops decides to refuse me permission onto the land - even though the shops might want my custom - that 's a problem .
It 's no better than a troll stopping people walking across his bridge - even if it is his bridge , it 's a problem if all your bridges are owned by trolls.There are various ways round this , for example right of way laws ( in the UK in some cases , people have a right of access , even if you own the land - it stops people buying up a load of land and blocking access ) , or simply regulating the amount of land in shopping areas that can be sold privately .
The local authorities regulate all sorts of other things , such as who can sell alcohol , or needing planning permission to build - the idea that the authorities should sit by and let people 's ability to access shops selling basic necessities be taken away , just because " it 's a private corporation " , seems mad.It 's no different from me running facial recognition against people who walk up my stairs .
( which i dont do btw.. ) It 's not at all the same .
We do n't consider all " private " lands to be equal - there are all sorts of laws that apply in " private " areas such as shops ( e.g. , no smoking bans , discrimination laws , employment laws ) , that would never apply in your private home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In which case, there's a problem if vast swathes of open land are actually privately owned, with no way of public access.If a shop owner doesn't want me in his shop, fine.
But if the land owner who grants access to all the shops decides to refuse me permission onto the land - even though the shops might want my custom - that's a problem.
It's no better than a troll stopping people walking across his bridge - even if it is his bridge, it's a problem if all your bridges are owned by trolls.There are various ways round this, for example right of way laws (in the UK in some cases, people have a right of access, even if you own the land - it stops people buying up a load of land and blocking access), or simply regulating the amount of land in shopping areas that can be sold privately.
The local authorities regulate all sorts of other things, such as who can sell alcohol, or needing planning permission to build - the idea that the authorities should sit by and let people's ability to access shops selling basic necessities be taken away, just because "it's a private corporation", seems mad.It's no different from me running facial recognition against people who walk up my stairs.
(which i dont do btw..)It's not at all the same.
We don't consider all "private" lands to be equal - there are all sorts of laws that apply in "private" areas such as shops (e.g., no smoking bans, discrimination laws, employment laws), that would never apply in your private home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386822</id>
	<title>Theft vs Privacy</title>
	<author>Thyamine</author>
	<datestamp>1260451140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not a fan for these types of things in general, with the standard privacy concerns most people are listing.  On the other side of it, my wife was a manager for several years at a retail chain at the mall, and they often had problems with shoplifting given the size of their products (bath and, you know, body products).  They were required to try and maintain as little theft as possible of course, but they were given no support up the chain and were not allowed to confront/ask/suggest that someone was doing anything along those lines.  And if they did, corporate would not support them and always support the customer because the store needs to be as customer friendly as possible of course.<br>
<br>
Something like this could help with those problems where known shoplifters are meandering the mall.  Store managers, as well as mall and store security personnel, already tend to share this information among themselves by stopping by each other's stores or calling over, but if you are the first store they visit it could be a heads up.  Just playing Devil's Advocate a bit, even though I dislike the idea in general.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not a fan for these types of things in general , with the standard privacy concerns most people are listing .
On the other side of it , my wife was a manager for several years at a retail chain at the mall , and they often had problems with shoplifting given the size of their products ( bath and , you know , body products ) .
They were required to try and maintain as little theft as possible of course , but they were given no support up the chain and were not allowed to confront/ask/suggest that someone was doing anything along those lines .
And if they did , corporate would not support them and always support the customer because the store needs to be as customer friendly as possible of course .
Something like this could help with those problems where known shoplifters are meandering the mall .
Store managers , as well as mall and store security personnel , already tend to share this information among themselves by stopping by each other 's stores or calling over , but if you are the first store they visit it could be a heads up .
Just playing Devil 's Advocate a bit , even though I dislike the idea in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not a fan for these types of things in general, with the standard privacy concerns most people are listing.
On the other side of it, my wife was a manager for several years at a retail chain at the mall, and they often had problems with shoplifting given the size of their products (bath and, you know, body products).
They were required to try and maintain as little theft as possible of course, but they were given no support up the chain and were not allowed to confront/ask/suggest that someone was doing anything along those lines.
And if they did, corporate would not support them and always support the customer because the store needs to be as customer friendly as possible of course.
Something like this could help with those problems where known shoplifters are meandering the mall.
Store managers, as well as mall and store security personnel, already tend to share this information among themselves by stopping by each other's stores or calling over, but if you are the first store they visit it could be a heads up.
Just playing Devil's Advocate a bit, even though I dislike the idea in general.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385640</id>
	<title>Re:Penrith isn't in Sydney...</title>
	<author>strider44</author>
	<datestamp>1260477180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really?  Did someone pick it up and move it since the last time I was there?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Did someone pick it up and move it since the last time I was there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Did someone pick it up and move it since the last time I was there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386344</id>
	<title>Re:Media bias?</title>
	<author>calmofthestorm</author>
	<datestamp>1260444300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Murdoch is Australian-born.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Murdoch is Australian-born .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Murdoch is Australian-born.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385808</id>
	<title>Re:It all comes down to what you do with it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260436920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am sorry but by mindlessly parroting the "fro teh chrildren!!!1" arguments you automatically disqualified yourself from any reasonable debate.</p><p>Have a seat and wait for the corrupt politician of the day to give you a pat on the back for being a good yes-man citizen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sorry but by mindlessly parroting the " fro teh chrildren ! !
! 1 " arguments you automatically disqualified yourself from any reasonable debate.Have a seat and wait for the corrupt politician of the day to give you a pat on the back for being a good yes-man citizen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sorry but by mindlessly parroting the "fro teh chrildren!!
!1" arguments you automatically disqualified yourself from any reasonable debate.Have a seat and wait for the corrupt politician of the day to give you a pat on the back for being a good yes-man citizen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387342</id>
	<title>"The identification system matches images..."</title>
	<author>fluch</author>
	<datestamp>1260456120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The identification system matches images captured by surveillance cameras to an existing database of faces."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and the whole thing is meant to fail.</p><p>The system will create a huge amount of false positives which in turn will make a lot of innocent customers annoyed and cause them to never come back. On the other hand it is quite likely that it will not catch any of the people in the database. Which will be an epic fail!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The identification system matches images captured by surveillance cameras to an existing database of faces .
" ... and the whole thing is meant to fail.The system will create a huge amount of false positives which in turn will make a lot of innocent customers annoyed and cause them to never come back .
On the other hand it is quite likely that it will not catch any of the people in the database .
Which will be an epic fail !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The identification system matches images captured by surveillance cameras to an existing database of faces.
" ... and the whole thing is meant to fail.The system will create a huge amount of false positives which in turn will make a lot of innocent customers annoyed and cause them to never come back.
On the other hand it is quite likely that it will not catch any of the people in the database.
Which will be an epic fail!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30389410</id>
	<title>I think this is a good idea, but it doesn't matter</title>
	<author>maillemaker</author>
	<datestamp>1260466140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Businesses are going to use this.  If I had a retail business, I sure would in a heartbeat.</p><p>If I caught a shoplifter in my store, and I had video surveillance of this person that included his face, I would enter his face into my facial-recognition system so that every time that "customer" came into my store in the future, I could give him an excellent, personal customer service experience by attending him closely every time he visited my store.</p><p>Likewise, if I had video surveillance of my best customers' faces, I would enter those faces into my facial-recognition system also, so that every time<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/they/ came into my store I could also give them excellent, personal customer service experiences, though for entirely different reasons, of course.</p><p>In short, I would use such a system to surreptitiously provide a different shopping experience to my better customers vs. my worst ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Businesses are going to use this .
If I had a retail business , I sure would in a heartbeat.If I caught a shoplifter in my store , and I had video surveillance of this person that included his face , I would enter his face into my facial-recognition system so that every time that " customer " came into my store in the future , I could give him an excellent , personal customer service experience by attending him closely every time he visited my store.Likewise , if I had video surveillance of my best customers ' faces , I would enter those faces into my facial-recognition system also , so that every time /they/ came into my store I could also give them excellent , personal customer service experiences , though for entirely different reasons , of course.In short , I would use such a system to surreptitiously provide a different shopping experience to my better customers vs. my worst ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Businesses are going to use this.
If I had a retail business, I sure would in a heartbeat.If I caught a shoplifter in my store, and I had video surveillance of this person that included his face, I would enter his face into my facial-recognition system so that every time that "customer" came into my store in the future, I could give him an excellent, personal customer service experience by attending him closely every time he visited my store.Likewise, if I had video surveillance of my best customers' faces, I would enter those faces into my facial-recognition system also, so that every time /they/ came into my store I could also give them excellent, personal customer service experiences, though for entirely different reasons, of course.In short, I would use such a system to surreptitiously provide a different shopping experience to my better customers vs. my worst ones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387522</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a good reason not to shop there.</title>
	<author>GrumblyStuff</author>
	<datestamp>1260457080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, I'm sure there's some law some where you inadvertently broke that they can fine or arrest you for.</p><p>Only criminals shop at places without facial recognition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , I 'm sure there 's some law some where you inadvertently broke that they can fine or arrest you for.Only criminals shop at places without facial recognition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, I'm sure there's some law some where you inadvertently broke that they can fine or arrest you for.Only criminals shop at places without facial recognition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385926</id>
	<title>Re:Solution?</title>
	<author>Nocterro</author>
	<datestamp>1260438660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Over here in sleepy old Adelaide, South Australia, our Westfield guards have been known to cause deaths <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2004/11/05/1235212.htm" title="abc.net.au" rel="nofollow">Security guard charged over elderly man's death</a> [abc.net.au]. Walking into a mall with your bike helmet accidentally left on will quickly atttract a number of tall, angry men.<br>
 A mask would be asking for way more trouble than it would be worth, as it'd be taken as practically a declaration of intent to cause trouble.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Over here in sleepy old Adelaide , South Australia , our Westfield guards have been known to cause deaths Security guard charged over elderly man 's death [ abc.net.au ] .
Walking into a mall with your bike helmet accidentally left on will quickly atttract a number of tall , angry men .
A mask would be asking for way more trouble than it would be worth , as it 'd be taken as practically a declaration of intent to cause trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Over here in sleepy old Adelaide, South Australia, our Westfield guards have been known to cause deaths Security guard charged over elderly man's death [abc.net.au].
Walking into a mall with your bike helmet accidentally left on will quickly atttract a number of tall, angry men.
A mask would be asking for way more trouble than it would be worth, as it'd be taken as practically a declaration of intent to cause trouble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385612</id>
	<title>What the fuck?</title>
	<author>SlightOverdose</author>
	<datestamp>1260476640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Police state, here we come.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Police state , here we come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Police state, here we come.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385826</id>
	<title>Re:Solution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260437100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In many jurisdictions (such as mine), wearing a mask in public (except in inclement weather, or as required by a medical condition) is a criminal act in itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In many jurisdictions ( such as mine ) , wearing a mask in public ( except in inclement weather , or as required by a medical condition ) is a criminal act in itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In many jurisdictions (such as mine), wearing a mask in public (except in inclement weather, or as required by a medical condition) is a criminal act in itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30396748</id>
	<title>Intentions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260450120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Between what I read about the Aussies and what I've experienced from having to work for them, their "intentions" are probably something along the lines of "Keeping those dirty filthy niggers and other 'undesirables' out of our nice, clean white-only shopping mall". How about we all copyright our faces, make it illegal to photograph us without prior written consent!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Between what I read about the Aussies and what I 've experienced from having to work for them , their " intentions " are probably something along the lines of " Keeping those dirty filthy niggers and other 'undesirables ' out of our nice , clean white-only shopping mall " .
How about we all copyright our faces , make it illegal to photograph us without prior written consent !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Between what I read about the Aussies and what I've experienced from having to work for them, their "intentions" are probably something along the lines of "Keeping those dirty filthy niggers and other 'undesirables' out of our nice, clean white-only shopping mall".
How about we all copyright our faces, make it illegal to photograph us without prior written consent!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387040</id>
	<title>Re:Solution?</title>
	<author>daem0n1x</author>
	<datestamp>1260453600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my country it's illegal to enter a shop with your face covered. Every time I fill my motorcycle I have to remove the helmet before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my country it 's illegal to enter a shop with your face covered .
Every time I fill my motorcycle I have to remove the helmet before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my country it's illegal to enter a shop with your face covered.
Every time I fill my motorcycle I have to remove the helmet before.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385704</id>
	<title>Re:It's private property people ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260478380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you don't want to be entered into their surveillance system don't shop at their mall.</p></div><p>And when every business participates in a facial ID program to help stop theft, the excuse will be "it's private property and everyone else does it."  When cities start putting facial ID systems in public places the excuses will be "It's to help catch bad people, and anyway it already happens every place you go into, so we might as well connect it all and know where you are at all times."</p><p>Maybe that won't happen, but why the hell are we letting them risk it?  This is to catch "thieves?"  Give me a break.  That's a stupid reason to start this crap.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't want to be entered into their surveillance system do n't shop at their mall.And when every business participates in a facial ID program to help stop theft , the excuse will be " it 's private property and everyone else does it .
" When cities start putting facial ID systems in public places the excuses will be " It 's to help catch bad people , and anyway it already happens every place you go into , so we might as well connect it all and know where you are at all times .
" Maybe that wo n't happen , but why the hell are we letting them risk it ?
This is to catch " thieves ?
" Give me a break .
That 's a stupid reason to start this crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't want to be entered into their surveillance system don't shop at their mall.And when every business participates in a facial ID program to help stop theft, the excuse will be "it's private property and everyone else does it.
"  When cities start putting facial ID systems in public places the excuses will be "It's to help catch bad people, and anyway it already happens every place you go into, so we might as well connect it all and know where you are at all times.
"Maybe that won't happen, but why the hell are we letting them risk it?
This is to catch "thieves?
"  Give me a break.
That's a stupid reason to start this crap.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385718</id>
	<title>How worthwhile is this, actually?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260478680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     Greetings and salutations...<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Here is an interesting study that indicates that the chances of a false positive are fairly great, especially in a chaotic setting:<br>http://www.rand.org/pubs/documented\_briefings/DB396/DB396.pdf</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; One might wave this off as inconsequential, until one gets a security escort in the mall because their face happens to resemble that of a pedophile or thief.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Automating enforcement is a tricky thing, and, should be approached with great caution.  We should not hop on the train simply because it is new, and shiny, and a sales person has taken us out for a multiple martini lunch!</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Of course, this is a USA-centric view, where at least we have the historical documents that are SUPPOSED to protect the citizens against abuse of one's civil rights by the authorities...  You folks out in the rest of the world...well....learn from the fact that over the past eight years or so, that, in spite of the Constitution, America has taken many large and troubling steps towards a Kafa-esque police state.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Pleasant dreams.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Dave Mundt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Greetings and salutations.. .           Here is an interesting study that indicates that the chances of a false positive are fairly great , especially in a chaotic setting : http : //www.rand.org/pubs/documented \ _briefings/DB396/DB396.pdf           One might wave this off as inconsequential , until one gets a security escort in the mall because their face happens to resemble that of a pedophile or thief .
          Automating enforcement is a tricky thing , and , should be approached with great caution .
We should not hop on the train simply because it is new , and shiny , and a sales person has taken us out for a multiple martini lunch !
          Of course , this is a USA-centric view , where at least we have the historical documents that are SUPPOSED to protect the citizens against abuse of one 's civil rights by the authorities... You folks out in the rest of the world...well....learn from the fact that over the past eight years or so , that , in spite of the Constitution , America has taken many large and troubling steps towards a Kafa-esque police state .
          Pleasant dreams .
          Dave Mundt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>     Greetings and salutations...
          Here is an interesting study that indicates that the chances of a false positive are fairly great, especially in a chaotic setting:http://www.rand.org/pubs/documented\_briefings/DB396/DB396.pdf
          One might wave this off as inconsequential, until one gets a security escort in the mall because their face happens to resemble that of a pedophile or thief.
          Automating enforcement is a tricky thing, and, should be approached with great caution.
We should not hop on the train simply because it is new, and shiny, and a sales person has taken us out for a multiple martini lunch!
          Of course, this is a USA-centric view, where at least we have the historical documents that are SUPPOSED to protect the citizens against abuse of one's civil rights by the authorities...  You folks out in the rest of the world...well....learn from the fact that over the past eight years or so, that, in spite of the Constitution, America has taken many large and troubling steps towards a Kafa-esque police state.
          Pleasant dreams.
          Dave Mundt</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30391584</id>
	<title>Re:It all comes down to what you do with it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260472860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'd also end up with a nice settlement.</p><p>I'm fairly sure that walking through a door cannot imply consent to be tasered under a mall's 'walk-through' legal agreement. Your lawyer would sue everyone involved, including the local PD (who presumably did the tasering), the mall's outsourced mall-cop company (who called the PD), the mall's owners (who hired them and installed the system) and the system's vendor (who's system screwed up).</p><p>The city PD would settle fairly quickly. Citys don't like the chances of being bankrupted and would likely prefer a smaller guaranteed hit to their balance. The mall-cop company would probably fight it longer - they really didn't do much except make a phone call based on what the system told them. I think they'd like their chances, and their public liability insurance would likely cover whatever a judge or jury awarded. The mall company would have a ton of liability, and more importantly, the resources to cover it. They'll likely settle for a sizeable sum. The vendor would probably fight for a while (their terms of use in their customer's contracts probably include terms to make their customers liable for actions taken). They'd probably settle for something though to avoid the negative publicity, thus to protect their chances in their market.</p><p>What I find interesting is that the system would presumably need access to the criminal databases that only law enforcement should have. It's another expansion of those-that-have in the info-class wars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd also end up with a nice settlement.I 'm fairly sure that walking through a door can not imply consent to be tasered under a mall 's 'walk-through ' legal agreement .
Your lawyer would sue everyone involved , including the local PD ( who presumably did the tasering ) , the mall 's outsourced mall-cop company ( who called the PD ) , the mall 's owners ( who hired them and installed the system ) and the system 's vendor ( who 's system screwed up ) .The city PD would settle fairly quickly .
Citys do n't like the chances of being bankrupted and would likely prefer a smaller guaranteed hit to their balance .
The mall-cop company would probably fight it longer - they really did n't do much except make a phone call based on what the system told them .
I think they 'd like their chances , and their public liability insurance would likely cover whatever a judge or jury awarded .
The mall company would have a ton of liability , and more importantly , the resources to cover it .
They 'll likely settle for a sizeable sum .
The vendor would probably fight for a while ( their terms of use in their customer 's contracts probably include terms to make their customers liable for actions taken ) .
They 'd probably settle for something though to avoid the negative publicity , thus to protect their chances in their market.What I find interesting is that the system would presumably need access to the criminal databases that only law enforcement should have .
It 's another expansion of those-that-have in the info-class wars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd also end up with a nice settlement.I'm fairly sure that walking through a door cannot imply consent to be tasered under a mall's 'walk-through' legal agreement.
Your lawyer would sue everyone involved, including the local PD (who presumably did the tasering), the mall's outsourced mall-cop company (who called the PD), the mall's owners (who hired them and installed the system) and the system's vendor (who's system screwed up).The city PD would settle fairly quickly.
Citys don't like the chances of being bankrupted and would likely prefer a smaller guaranteed hit to their balance.
The mall-cop company would probably fight it longer - they really didn't do much except make a phone call based on what the system told them.
I think they'd like their chances, and their public liability insurance would likely cover whatever a judge or jury awarded.
The mall company would have a ton of liability, and more importantly, the resources to cover it.
They'll likely settle for a sizeable sum.
The vendor would probably fight for a while (their terms of use in their customer's contracts probably include terms to make their customers liable for actions taken).
They'd probably settle for something though to avoid the negative publicity, thus to protect their chances in their market.What I find interesting is that the system would presumably need access to the criminal databases that only law enforcement should have.
It's another expansion of those-that-have in the info-class wars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30388326</id>
	<title>I just do eyes!</title>
	<author>Papatoast</author>
	<datestamp>1260461940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GAP Sign: Hello Mr. Yukkamoto and welcome back to the GAP!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GAP Sign : Hello Mr. Yukkamoto and welcome back to the GAP !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GAP Sign: Hello Mr. Yukkamoto and welcome back to the GAP!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387558</id>
	<title>Re:What the fuck?</title>
	<author>Failed Physicist</author>
	<datestamp>1260457380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> This is the opposite of a police state, this is a free state that lets the corporations do whatever they want.</p></div><p>Except if the goals of these police corporations are virtually indistinguishable from the wishes of the state that lets them thrive. The resulting intimate meshing of corporations and government is then called fascism.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the opposite of a police state , this is a free state that lets the corporations do whatever they want.Except if the goals of these police corporations are virtually indistinguishable from the wishes of the state that lets them thrive .
The resulting intimate meshing of corporations and government is then called fascism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This is the opposite of a police state, this is a free state that lets the corporations do whatever they want.Except if the goals of these police corporations are virtually indistinguishable from the wishes of the state that lets them thrive.
The resulting intimate meshing of corporations and government is then called fascism.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386338</id>
	<title>Re:It's private property people ...</title>
	<author>Peaker</author>
	<datestamp>1260444180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With this attitude, anyone wanting to keep their privacy and basic rights is pretty much stuck at home -- with a tin foil hat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With this attitude , anyone wanting to keep their privacy and basic rights is pretty much stuck at home -- with a tin foil hat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With this attitude, anyone wanting to keep their privacy and basic rights is pretty much stuck at home -- with a tin foil hat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386156</id>
	<title>Re:Media bias?</title>
	<author>lbft</author>
	<datestamp>1260441900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know what planet you're from, but this seems to me a fairly unremarkable canvassing of opinions on the topic without editorial comment. The format of the article goes:</p><p>Introduction<br>Police opinion<br>Westfield uses some words and says nothing<br>Australian Privacy Foundation opinion<br>Contextualisation<br>Professor Maciej Henneberg's opinion</p><p>Just because you don't agree with the opinions doesn't make the article biased, it makes those people wrong in your view (and in mine). But you can't deny that their opinions are relevant to the issue - the police, a privacy advocate group and an academic. The only failure on the part of the journalist is the selection of the academic they spoke to, who according to a quick search is in the field of biological anthropology and anatomy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know what planet you 're from , but this seems to me a fairly unremarkable canvassing of opinions on the topic without editorial comment .
The format of the article goes : IntroductionPolice opinionWestfield uses some words and says nothingAustralian Privacy Foundation opinionContextualisationProfessor Maciej Henneberg 's opinionJust because you do n't agree with the opinions does n't make the article biased , it makes those people wrong in your view ( and in mine ) .
But you ca n't deny that their opinions are relevant to the issue - the police , a privacy advocate group and an academic .
The only failure on the part of the journalist is the selection of the academic they spoke to , who according to a quick search is in the field of biological anthropology and anatomy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know what planet you're from, but this seems to me a fairly unremarkable canvassing of opinions on the topic without editorial comment.
The format of the article goes:IntroductionPolice opinionWestfield uses some words and says nothingAustralian Privacy Foundation opinionContextualisationProfessor Maciej Henneberg's opinionJust because you don't agree with the opinions doesn't make the article biased, it makes those people wrong in your view (and in mine).
But you can't deny that their opinions are relevant to the issue - the police, a privacy advocate group and an academic.
The only failure on the part of the journalist is the selection of the academic they spoke to, who according to a quick search is in the field of biological anthropology and anatomy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385900</id>
	<title>Re:Solution?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260438180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mask? You'll get crash-tackled if you forget to take your motorbike helmet off. A mask would be asking for a shitstorm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mask ?
You 'll get crash-tackled if you forget to take your motorbike helmet off .
A mask would be asking for a shitstorm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mask?
You'll get crash-tackled if you forget to take your motorbike helmet off.
A mask would be asking for a shitstorm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386006</id>
	<title>Re:It's private property people ...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260439860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah right, because on their property, laws have no meaning and vanish, right?</p><p>So they can rape you in the ass with a chainsaw from when you enter, until you leave. And never let you leave. All legal.</p><p>Riiiiiight... ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah right , because on their property , laws have no meaning and vanish , right ? So they can rape you in the ass with a chainsaw from when you enter , until you leave .
And never let you leave .
All legal.Riiiiiight... ^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah right, because on their property, laws have no meaning and vanish, right?So they can rape you in the ass with a chainsaw from when you enter, until you leave.
And never let you leave.
All legal.Riiiiiight... ^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30390314</id>
	<title>Re:What the fuck?</title>
	<author>Thinko</author>
	<datestamp>1260468780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is this any different from what the Las Vegas (and countless other) casinos have done for as long as the technology has been available (even at very high cost). I don't disagree this is a slippery slope, but with the cost of the software and utility computing/processing power ever falling, from a technical standpoint this is an inevitability. I'd be very surprised if there weren't US malls (and even individual businesses) already running facial recognition software, it probably just wasn't highly publicized. If they want to keep it on the down-low, and are asked how they spotted someone, they can simply claim one of their security officers recognized them while monitoring the video feed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this any different from what the Las Vegas ( and countless other ) casinos have done for as long as the technology has been available ( even at very high cost ) .
I do n't disagree this is a slippery slope , but with the cost of the software and utility computing/processing power ever falling , from a technical standpoint this is an inevitability .
I 'd be very surprised if there were n't US malls ( and even individual businesses ) already running facial recognition software , it probably just was n't highly publicized .
If they want to keep it on the down-low , and are asked how they spotted someone , they can simply claim one of their security officers recognized them while monitoring the video feed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this any different from what the Las Vegas (and countless other) casinos have done for as long as the technology has been available (even at very high cost).
I don't disagree this is a slippery slope, but with the cost of the software and utility computing/processing power ever falling, from a technical standpoint this is an inevitability.
I'd be very surprised if there weren't US malls (and even individual businesses) already running facial recognition software, it probably just wasn't highly publicized.
If they want to keep it on the down-low, and are asked how they spotted someone, they can simply claim one of their security officers recognized them while monitoring the video feed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386468</id>
	<title>Re:Solution?</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1260446040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shop somewhere else?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shop somewhere else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shop somewhere else?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387282</id>
	<title>Re:It all comes down to what you do with it</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1260455640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you ignore the possible invasion of privacy which is kind of moot in such a public place, then if the algorithms to match faces work well enough, you could use it to identify criminals.</p></div> </blockquote><p>There's a difference between "someone might see me" and "someone is watching my every move". The latter is stalking, and we have laws against stalkers. And I don't think "officer, I stalked him just in case he happened to be a criminal" would fly in court.</p><blockquote><div><p>I don't know if sex offenders are limited from being in malls with kid play areas, but if they are, that would be one good application I would stand for.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I don't. I can understand why such people might be banned from working as kindergarden teachers or other positions requiring trust, but banning them from shops because there might be children in the same building is just ridiculous. The whole "sex offender" thing is nowadays simply used as an excuse to bully a socially accepted target; I find the practice every bit as disgusting as rape.</p><p>Not that being a "sex offender" has anything to do with rape, or even with sex; you can get on the list for urinating in public.</p><blockquote><div><p>Also if someone loses a child in a mall, this could make finding said child a lot easier.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Think of the chiiildren!</p><p>Ironically enough, without the whole "sex offender" hysteria lost children would probably be escorted to security personnel, who would then find the parents. Instead everyone will steer clear of them for fear of being accused of being a "predator", the accusation being sufficient to get them inserted into the sex offender registry and apparently banned from malls forever, as well as being subjected to any arbitrary punishment someone who "thinks of the children" can come up with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ignore the possible invasion of privacy which is kind of moot in such a public place , then if the algorithms to match faces work well enough , you could use it to identify criminals .
There 's a difference between " someone might see me " and " someone is watching my every move " .
The latter is stalking , and we have laws against stalkers .
And I do n't think " officer , I stalked him just in case he happened to be a criminal " would fly in court.I do n't know if sex offenders are limited from being in malls with kid play areas , but if they are , that would be one good application I would stand for .
I do n't .
I can understand why such people might be banned from working as kindergarden teachers or other positions requiring trust , but banning them from shops because there might be children in the same building is just ridiculous .
The whole " sex offender " thing is nowadays simply used as an excuse to bully a socially accepted target ; I find the practice every bit as disgusting as rape.Not that being a " sex offender " has anything to do with rape , or even with sex ; you can get on the list for urinating in public.Also if someone loses a child in a mall , this could make finding said child a lot easier .
Think of the chiiildren ! Ironically enough , without the whole " sex offender " hysteria lost children would probably be escorted to security personnel , who would then find the parents .
Instead everyone will steer clear of them for fear of being accused of being a " predator " , the accusation being sufficient to get them inserted into the sex offender registry and apparently banned from malls forever , as well as being subjected to any arbitrary punishment someone who " thinks of the children " can come up with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ignore the possible invasion of privacy which is kind of moot in such a public place, then if the algorithms to match faces work well enough, you could use it to identify criminals.
There's a difference between "someone might see me" and "someone is watching my every move".
The latter is stalking, and we have laws against stalkers.
And I don't think "officer, I stalked him just in case he happened to be a criminal" would fly in court.I don't know if sex offenders are limited from being in malls with kid play areas, but if they are, that would be one good application I would stand for.
I don't.
I can understand why such people might be banned from working as kindergarden teachers or other positions requiring trust, but banning them from shops because there might be children in the same building is just ridiculous.
The whole "sex offender" thing is nowadays simply used as an excuse to bully a socially accepted target; I find the practice every bit as disgusting as rape.Not that being a "sex offender" has anything to do with rape, or even with sex; you can get on the list for urinating in public.Also if someone loses a child in a mall, this could make finding said child a lot easier.
Think of the chiiildren!Ironically enough, without the whole "sex offender" hysteria lost children would probably be escorted to security personnel, who would then find the parents.
Instead everyone will steer clear of them for fear of being accused of being a "predator", the accusation being sufficient to get them inserted into the sex offender registry and apparently banned from malls forever, as well as being subjected to any arbitrary punishment someone who "thinks of the children" can come up with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385616</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30390314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30388362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30391584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30388012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30391622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30398158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_10_0224204_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0224204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30398158
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30391584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30388012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0224204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0224204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0224204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0224204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30391622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0224204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0224204.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0224204.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0224204.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30388362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0224204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0224204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_10_0224204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30385612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30390314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30386426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_10_0224204.30387558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
