<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_14_2141215</id>
	<title>Supreme Court Takes Texting Privacy Case</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1260787860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>TaggartAleslayer writes with this excerpt from the NYTimes:
<i>"The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether a police department <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/us/15scotus.html">violated the constitutional privacy rights of an employee</a> when it inspected personal text messages sent and received on a government pager. The case opens 'a new frontier in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,' according to a three-judge panel of an appeals court that <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2008/06/18/0755282.pdf">ruled in favor</a> of the employee, a police sergeant on the Ontario, Calif., SWAT team. ... Members of the department's SWAT team were given pagers and told they were responsible for charges in excess of 25,000 characters a month. Under an informal policy adopted by a police lieutenant, those who paid the excess charges themselves would not have their messages inspected. The lieutenant eventually changed his mind and ordered transcripts of messages sent and received by Sgt. Jeff Quon. In one month in 2002, only 57 of more than 456 of those messages were related to official business. According to the trial judge, many of the messages 'were, to say the least, sexually explicit in nature.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>TaggartAleslayer writes with this excerpt from the NYTimes : " The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether a police department violated the constitutional privacy rights of an employee when it inspected personal text messages sent and received on a government pager .
The case opens 'a new frontier in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, ' according to a three-judge panel of an appeals court that ruled in favor of the employee , a police sergeant on the Ontario , Calif. , SWAT team .
... Members of the department 's SWAT team were given pagers and told they were responsible for charges in excess of 25,000 characters a month .
Under an informal policy adopted by a police lieutenant , those who paid the excess charges themselves would not have their messages inspected .
The lieutenant eventually changed his mind and ordered transcripts of messages sent and received by Sgt .
Jeff Quon .
In one month in 2002 , only 57 of more than 456 of those messages were related to official business .
According to the trial judge , many of the messages 'were , to say the least , sexually explicit in nature .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TaggartAleslayer writes with this excerpt from the NYTimes:
"The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether a police department violated the constitutional privacy rights of an employee when it inspected personal text messages sent and received on a government pager.
The case opens 'a new frontier in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,' according to a three-judge panel of an appeals court that ruled in favor of the employee, a police sergeant on the Ontario, Calif., SWAT team.
... Members of the department's SWAT team were given pagers and told they were responsible for charges in excess of 25,000 characters a month.
Under an informal policy adopted by a police lieutenant, those who paid the excess charges themselves would not have their messages inspected.
The lieutenant eventually changed his mind and ordered transcripts of messages sent and received by Sgt.
Jeff Quon.
In one month in 2002, only 57 of more than 456 of those messages were related to official business.
According to the trial judge, many of the messages 'were, to say the least, sexually explicit in nature.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30443510</id>
	<title>Re:why is this even in question?</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1260889740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was just going to mod you "off topic" but decided to explain why instead.</p><p>Your post is a red herring. This has nothing to do with "a vast majority of our "personal" data has wandered out onto networks and servers that none of us control." This is about someone using his employer's equipment for personal use and the employer examining that personal use. That is the total extent of what was happening.</p><p>There is no controversy here. Someone used his employers equipment for personal use. Employer inspected the equipment and the data it contained. The employee never had a reasonable expectation of privacy from his employer on this device because the device belongs to the employer. And, I am willing to bet there is wording to that effect in the IT policies of the employer.</p><p>The three judge appeals panel is wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was just going to mod you " off topic " but decided to explain why instead.Your post is a red herring .
This has nothing to do with " a vast majority of our " personal " data has wandered out onto networks and servers that none of us control .
" This is about someone using his employer 's equipment for personal use and the employer examining that personal use .
That is the total extent of what was happening.There is no controversy here .
Someone used his employers equipment for personal use .
Employer inspected the equipment and the data it contained .
The employee never had a reasonable expectation of privacy from his employer on this device because the device belongs to the employer .
And , I am willing to bet there is wording to that effect in the IT policies of the employer.The three judge appeals panel is wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was just going to mod you "off topic" but decided to explain why instead.Your post is a red herring.
This has nothing to do with "a vast majority of our "personal" data has wandered out onto networks and servers that none of us control.
" This is about someone using his employer's equipment for personal use and the employer examining that personal use.
That is the total extent of what was happening.There is no controversy here.
Someone used his employers equipment for personal use.
Employer inspected the equipment and the data it contained.
The employee never had a reasonable expectation of privacy from his employer on this device because the device belongs to the employer.
And, I am willing to bet there is wording to that effect in the IT policies of the employer.The three judge appeals panel is wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438180</id>
	<title>Re:There's the kicker:</title>
	<author>chazzf</author>
	<datestamp>1260798000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary, however, oversimplifies things. In the opinion, the Court notes that the sergeant signed an acceptable use policy in 2000, and was informed at a general meeting in 2002 that pagers (and their messages) were considered email as far as the policy was concerned. The city had a policy/practice (not entirely clear how official) that employees who went over the 25,000 character limit would pay the overage. The lieutenant who acted as the bill collector apparently told members of the force that if they paid the overages there would be no questions asked. In 2003, the chief asked for an evaluation of whether these repeated overages were work-related, apparently (and a jury agreed) to determine whether the 25,000 character limit was still reasonable or whether it needed to be increased. The primary point of contention, I think, is over whether the provider violated the Stored Communications Act by turning over the transcripts to the city in the first place. There's an interesting write-up over at <a href="http://volokh.com/2009/12/14/supreme-court-grants-cert-on-fourth-amendment-protection-in-text-messages/" title="volokh.com">Volokh</a> [volokh.com] from Orin Kerr, whose work on the SCA is cited in the Court's opinion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary , however , oversimplifies things .
In the opinion , the Court notes that the sergeant signed an acceptable use policy in 2000 , and was informed at a general meeting in 2002 that pagers ( and their messages ) were considered email as far as the policy was concerned .
The city had a policy/practice ( not entirely clear how official ) that employees who went over the 25,000 character limit would pay the overage .
The lieutenant who acted as the bill collector apparently told members of the force that if they paid the overages there would be no questions asked .
In 2003 , the chief asked for an evaluation of whether these repeated overages were work-related , apparently ( and a jury agreed ) to determine whether the 25,000 character limit was still reasonable or whether it needed to be increased .
The primary point of contention , I think , is over whether the provider violated the Stored Communications Act by turning over the transcripts to the city in the first place .
There 's an interesting write-up over at Volokh [ volokh.com ] from Orin Kerr , whose work on the SCA is cited in the Court 's opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary, however, oversimplifies things.
In the opinion, the Court notes that the sergeant signed an acceptable use policy in 2000, and was informed at a general meeting in 2002 that pagers (and their messages) were considered email as far as the policy was concerned.
The city had a policy/practice (not entirely clear how official) that employees who went over the 25,000 character limit would pay the overage.
The lieutenant who acted as the bill collector apparently told members of the force that if they paid the overages there would be no questions asked.
In 2003, the chief asked for an evaluation of whether these repeated overages were work-related, apparently (and a jury agreed) to determine whether the 25,000 character limit was still reasonable or whether it needed to be increased.
The primary point of contention, I think, is over whether the provider violated the Stored Communications Act by turning over the transcripts to the city in the first place.
There's an interesting write-up over at Volokh [volokh.com] from Orin Kerr, whose work on the SCA is cited in the Court's opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436812</id>
	<title>Policy Changes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260791760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the bloody hell is the point of stating a policy if you don't have to stick to it?  This happens all the time in all sorts of organizations.</p><p>If you have a policy, you should be held to it.  If you give reasonable notice of changes, that's acceptable.  It is completely unacceptable to make up rules as you go along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the bloody hell is the point of stating a policy if you do n't have to stick to it ?
This happens all the time in all sorts of organizations.If you have a policy , you should be held to it .
If you give reasonable notice of changes , that 's acceptable .
It is completely unacceptable to make up rules as you go along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the bloody hell is the point of stating a policy if you don't have to stick to it?
This happens all the time in all sorts of organizations.If you have a policy, you should be held to it.
If you give reasonable notice of changes, that's acceptable.
It is completely unacceptable to make up rules as you go along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438048</id>
	<title>CA cop on stimulus plan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260797280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too dumb to be a cop! Only 12 percent were work related messages. You might as well txt the media with your resignation and a report on wasting police resources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too dumb to be a cop !
Only 12 percent were work related messages .
You might as well txt the media with your resignation and a report on wasting police resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too dumb to be a cop!
Only 12 percent were work related messages.
You might as well txt the media with your resignation and a report on wasting police resources.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30471234</id>
	<title>Re:Oh wait, what? This again?</title>
	<author>michaelhood</author>
	<datestamp>1261047660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A police department asking a telecom company to turn over transcripts of messages is a somewhat different position, though. Does a telecom company really treat those requests exactly as any other customer asking for transcripts of messages? Or does it treat it like a <i>police request</i> for transcripts?</p></div><p>Larger telecoms have well-established protocols for responding to official requests from LE for records. This would not fall within that unless the Department had submitted the proper paperwork for a subpoena. I don't see the need for them to do this, the telecom would likely be willing to comply since it is <i>their</i> account, after all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A police department asking a telecom company to turn over transcripts of messages is a somewhat different position , though .
Does a telecom company really treat those requests exactly as any other customer asking for transcripts of messages ?
Or does it treat it like a police request for transcripts ? Larger telecoms have well-established protocols for responding to official requests from LE for records .
This would not fall within that unless the Department had submitted the proper paperwork for a subpoena .
I do n't see the need for them to do this , the telecom would likely be willing to comply since it is their account , after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A police department asking a telecom company to turn over transcripts of messages is a somewhat different position, though.
Does a telecom company really treat those requests exactly as any other customer asking for transcripts of messages?
Or does it treat it like a police request for transcripts?Larger telecoms have well-established protocols for responding to official requests from LE for records.
This would not fall within that unless the Department had submitted the proper paperwork for a subpoena.
I don't see the need for them to do this, the telecom would likely be willing to comply since it is their account, after all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30444858</id>
	<title>Re:Paid</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1260895740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree, but the details are a little different here. The boss told employees their texts would be kept private. The employees now had legal reason to expect privacy so long as they maintained their legal obligation, which was to pay the overages. The boss then violated their privacy, contrary to the previous assertions.</p><p>This is actually pretty cut and dry. The employees were assured of privacy. The employer lied. The employee was fired as a result of the employer's lie. Had the employer not lied, its doubtful the situation which gave rise to the firing as its unlikely it would have ever occurred. The employer is clearly at fault and in violation of a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.</p><p>Having said all that - best everyone remember the advise you offered in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree , but the details are a little different here .
The boss told employees their texts would be kept private .
The employees now had legal reason to expect privacy so long as they maintained their legal obligation , which was to pay the overages .
The boss then violated their privacy , contrary to the previous assertions.This is actually pretty cut and dry .
The employees were assured of privacy .
The employer lied .
The employee was fired as a result of the employer 's lie .
Had the employer not lied , its doubtful the situation which gave rise to the firing as its unlikely it would have ever occurred .
The employer is clearly at fault and in violation of a person 's reasonable expectation of privacy.Having said all that - best everyone remember the advise you offered in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree, but the details are a little different here.
The boss told employees their texts would be kept private.
The employees now had legal reason to expect privacy so long as they maintained their legal obligation, which was to pay the overages.
The boss then violated their privacy, contrary to the previous assertions.This is actually pretty cut and dry.
The employees were assured of privacy.
The employer lied.
The employee was fired as a result of the employer's lie.
Had the employer not lied, its doubtful the situation which gave rise to the firing as its unlikely it would have ever occurred.
The employer is clearly at fault and in violation of a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.Having said all that - best everyone remember the advise you offered in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438378</id>
	<title>Re:Police take oath of celebacy???</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1260798840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As for the issue of using police equipment for personal messages, if this was permitted at the time, again what's the problem?</p></div><p>I didn't see anywhere in the decision that said the officers' behavior was permitted.<br>As a matter of fact, both sides agreed that the AUP prohibited such usage.<br>The Court decided that the officers had a right to privacy and the searches were unreasonable, that's it.</p><p>If the Lieutenant had stuck to the policies as they were written, there would have been no presumed right to privacy and this would never have ended up in court.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As for the issue of using police equipment for personal messages , if this was permitted at the time , again what 's the problem ? I did n't see anywhere in the decision that said the officers ' behavior was permitted.As a matter of fact , both sides agreed that the AUP prohibited such usage.The Court decided that the officers had a right to privacy and the searches were unreasonable , that 's it.If the Lieutenant had stuck to the policies as they were written , there would have been no presumed right to privacy and this would never have ended up in court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for the issue of using police equipment for personal messages, if this was permitted at the time, again what's the problem?I didn't see anywhere in the decision that said the officers' behavior was permitted.As a matter of fact, both sides agreed that the AUP prohibited such usage.The Court decided that the officers had a right to privacy and the searches were unreasonable, that's it.If the Lieutenant had stuck to the policies as they were written, there would have been no presumed right to privacy and this would never have ended up in court.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30442874</id>
	<title>Re:why is this even in question?</title>
	<author>jittles</author>
	<datestamp>1260885480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really? Never call home or be called from home on your work phone? Clearly you don't have kids, or work in a facility that has no cell phone reception.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Never call home or be called from home on your work phone ?
Clearly you do n't have kids , or work in a facility that has no cell phone reception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Never call home or be called from home on your work phone?
Clearly you don't have kids, or work in a facility that has no cell phone reception.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437684</id>
	<title>I will add</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260795660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that it doesn't make sense to believe such an obviously-likely-to-change promise and do risky stuff.  Even though it was completely wrong (and in my opinion actionable) that they changed their policy and then acted upon that change without warning anyone....it is *also* stupid to have not seen this coming.</p><p>I prefer to preemptively protect myself from abuse even when the abusers promise not to abuse me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that it does n't make sense to believe such an obviously-likely-to-change promise and do risky stuff .
Even though it was completely wrong ( and in my opinion actionable ) that they changed their policy and then acted upon that change without warning anyone....it is * also * stupid to have not seen this coming.I prefer to preemptively protect myself from abuse even when the abusers promise not to abuse me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that it doesn't make sense to believe such an obviously-likely-to-change promise and do risky stuff.
Even though it was completely wrong (and in my opinion actionable) that they changed their policy and then acted upon that change without warning anyone....it is *also* stupid to have not seen this coming.I prefer to preemptively protect myself from abuse even when the abusers promise not to abuse me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437194</id>
	<title>nature is so hot...</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1260793560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...sexually explicit in nature.</p></div><p>Mosquitoes can be a problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...sexually explicit in nature.Mosquitoes can be a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...sexually explicit in nature.Mosquitoes can be a problem.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30442864</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260885420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Replace 2002 with 1992 and your description of the state of SMS would be more fitting.<br>Oh wait, you are American... Welcome to the 20th century. Have you guys got debit cards yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Replace 2002 with 1992 and your description of the state of SMS would be more fitting.Oh wait , you are American... Welcome to the 20th century .
Have you guys got debit cards yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replace 2002 with 1992 and your description of the state of SMS would be more fitting.Oh wait, you are American... Welcome to the 20th century.
Have you guys got debit cards yet?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437660</id>
	<title>Re:why is this even in question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260795600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Look, it's simple: if your employer owns a device, and allows you to use it, you are not to <b>ever</b> use it for personal reasons, nor should you ever expect even the slightest amount of privacy for communications using the device. [...] That goes for cell phones, pagers, computers, <b>slide rules</b>, everything. That means you do not log into personal Facebook, Google, or Hotmail at work.</p></div><p>But I can't make it through the day without checking out the latest slashdot story on my company-issued slide rule!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , it 's simple : if your employer owns a device , and allows you to use it , you are not to ever use it for personal reasons , nor should you ever expect even the slightest amount of privacy for communications using the device .
[ ... ] That goes for cell phones , pagers , computers , slide rules , everything .
That means you do not log into personal Facebook , Google , or Hotmail at work.But I ca n't make it through the day without checking out the latest slashdot story on my company-issued slide rule !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, it's simple: if your employer owns a device, and allows you to use it, you are not to ever use it for personal reasons, nor should you ever expect even the slightest amount of privacy for communications using the device.
[...] That goes for cell phones, pagers, computers, slide rules, everything.
That means you do not log into personal Facebook, Google, or Hotmail at work.But I can't make it through the day without checking out the latest slashdot story on my company-issued slide rule!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30443204</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260888000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the hell is wrong with you?<br>&gt;'cool kids who wanted to be like the drug dealers' were discovering SMS on their phones.<br>You're a moron if you think in 2002 sms was the domain of suburban teenagers selling dimebags of dirtweed.  SMS was and still is mostly used by hyoeractive 15 year old girls...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell is wrong with you ? &gt; 'cool kids who wanted to be like the drug dealers ' were discovering SMS on their phones.You 're a moron if you think in 2002 sms was the domain of suburban teenagers selling dimebags of dirtweed .
SMS was and still is mostly used by hyoeractive 15 year old girls.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell is wrong with you?&gt;'cool kids who wanted to be like the drug dealers' were discovering SMS on their phones.You're a moron if you think in 2002 sms was the domain of suburban teenagers selling dimebags of dirtweed.
SMS was and still is mostly used by hyoeractive 15 year old girls...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30443154</id>
	<title>Re:why is this even in question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260887700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That may be true where you live, but certainly not universally.</p><p>People having company phones as their primary or only phone is standard practice in many countries, and not only do you have the right to use it for personal things, you also have a right to privacy.  The only thing your employer can do is charge you if you rack up excessive phone bills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That may be true where you live , but certainly not universally.People having company phones as their primary or only phone is standard practice in many countries , and not only do you have the right to use it for personal things , you also have a right to privacy .
The only thing your employer can do is charge you if you rack up excessive phone bills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That may be true where you live, but certainly not universally.People having company phones as their primary or only phone is standard practice in many countries, and not only do you have the right to use it for personal things, you also have a right to privacy.
The only thing your employer can do is charge you if you rack up excessive phone bills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437632</id>
	<title>Re:Oh wait, what? This again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260795480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>An organization has the right to inspect how its resources are being used? Madness!</i></p><p>But isn't this the same government that doesn't need a warrant to look at email &amp; text messages?</p><p>Why should a SWAT officer have more rights than other citizens? Oh, right, they have guns.</p><p>Remind me to renew my gun permit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An organization has the right to inspect how its resources are being used ?
Madness ! But is n't this the same government that does n't need a warrant to look at email &amp; text messages ? Why should a SWAT officer have more rights than other citizens ?
Oh , right , they have guns.Remind me to renew my gun permit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An organization has the right to inspect how its resources are being used?
Madness!But isn't this the same government that doesn't need a warrant to look at email &amp; text messages?Why should a SWAT officer have more rights than other citizens?
Oh, right, they have guns.Remind me to renew my gun permit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437264</id>
	<title>Re:Oh wait, what? This again?</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1260793980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A police department asking a telecom company to turn over transcripts of messages is a somewhat different position, though. Does a telecom company really treat those requests exactly as any other customer asking for transcripts of messages? Or does it treat it like a <i>police request</i> for transcripts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A police department asking a telecom company to turn over transcripts of messages is a somewhat different position , though .
Does a telecom company really treat those requests exactly as any other customer asking for transcripts of messages ?
Or does it treat it like a police request for transcripts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A police department asking a telecom company to turn over transcripts of messages is a somewhat different position, though.
Does a telecom company really treat those requests exactly as any other customer asking for transcripts of messages?
Or does it treat it like a police request for transcripts?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30440330</id>
	<title>Re:why is this even in question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260811860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does that mean I can't play FarmVille at work? Because I can't live without my sheep...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does that mean I ca n't play FarmVille at work ?
Because I ca n't live without my sheep.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does that mean I can't play FarmVille at work?
Because I can't live without my sheep...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437842</id>
	<title>Employer property!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260796440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ummm...it's employer property! A few times in the past, I've made personal calls on my work cell phone [I did not yet have a cell phone myself], and I understood that my employer had the right to [1] make me pay for it, and [2] ask me what the hell I was doing--they wound up doing neither, since we didn't exceed the monthly minute allocation.</p><p>I've thought of an interesting one though:</p><p>My employer sends me on travel and gets me a hotel room for a week. I use the hotel's Internet connection to surf porn from my work laptop. At the time, I am NOT logged into the company VPN or using a company aircard. I keep Firefox in porn mode. Or I just bring my own laptop with me and surf porn from that.</p><p>I'd side with the employee in this case. Just like a workplace bathroom, when an employee is in their hotel room after a day of work, they're off the clock and have an expectation of privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm...it 's employer property !
A few times in the past , I 've made personal calls on my work cell phone [ I did not yet have a cell phone myself ] , and I understood that my employer had the right to [ 1 ] make me pay for it , and [ 2 ] ask me what the hell I was doing--they wound up doing neither , since we did n't exceed the monthly minute allocation.I 've thought of an interesting one though : My employer sends me on travel and gets me a hotel room for a week .
I use the hotel 's Internet connection to surf porn from my work laptop .
At the time , I am NOT logged into the company VPN or using a company aircard .
I keep Firefox in porn mode .
Or I just bring my own laptop with me and surf porn from that.I 'd side with the employee in this case .
Just like a workplace bathroom , when an employee is in their hotel room after a day of work , they 're off the clock and have an expectation of privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm...it's employer property!
A few times in the past, I've made personal calls on my work cell phone [I did not yet have a cell phone myself], and I understood that my employer had the right to [1] make me pay for it, and [2] ask me what the hell I was doing--they wound up doing neither, since we didn't exceed the monthly minute allocation.I've thought of an interesting one though:My employer sends me on travel and gets me a hotel room for a week.
I use the hotel's Internet connection to surf porn from my work laptop.
At the time, I am NOT logged into the company VPN or using a company aircard.
I keep Firefox in porn mode.
Or I just bring my own laptop with me and surf porn from that.I'd side with the employee in this case.
Just like a workplace bathroom, when an employee is in their hotel room after a day of work, they're off the clock and have an expectation of privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436900</id>
	<title>Seriously, what did you expect to find...</title>
	<author>Fluffeh</author>
	<datestamp>1260792120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Browsers with "Stealth" (porn) browsing features, schoolkids sending naked pictures of themselves via cellphone, laptops loaded with porn, and you really expect company pagers not to be used to shmooze with others?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Browsers with " Stealth " ( porn ) browsing features , schoolkids sending naked pictures of themselves via cellphone , laptops loaded with porn , and you really expect company pagers not to be used to shmooze with others ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Browsers with "Stealth" (porn) browsing features, schoolkids sending naked pictures of themselves via cellphone, laptops loaded with porn, and you really expect company pagers not to be used to shmooze with others?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436946</id>
	<title>Any different than E-Mail?</title>
	<author>Virtucon</author>
	<datestamp>1260792360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How is this any different than employers reading your e-mail?  There's already statements from the Supreme Court that "While police, and even administrative enforcement personnel, conduct searches for the primary purpose of obtaining evidence for use in criminal or other enforcement proceedings, employers most frequently need to enter the offices and desks of their employees for legitimate work-related reasons wholly unrelated to illegal conduct."</p><p>It sounds like in this case the employer had a policy regarding 25000 characters per month and they were enforcing a policy.  Arch(Pagenet) didn't have much in the way of message security anyway so this seems that<br>the employer could get access quite easily to the messages, especially if they were the account holder.</p><p>Since Text Messages and E-Mails are handled by third parties, wouldn't this also apply to the recent ruling that you don't have a right to privacy?</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this any different than employers reading your e-mail ?
There 's already statements from the Supreme Court that " While police , and even administrative enforcement personnel , conduct searches for the primary purpose of obtaining evidence for use in criminal or other enforcement proceedings , employers most frequently need to enter the offices and desks of their employees for legitimate work-related reasons wholly unrelated to illegal conduct .
" It sounds like in this case the employer had a policy regarding 25000 characters per month and they were enforcing a policy .
Arch ( Pagenet ) did n't have much in the way of message security anyway so this seems thatthe employer could get access quite easily to the messages , especially if they were the account holder.Since Text Messages and E-Mails are handled by third parties , would n't this also apply to the recent ruling that you do n't have a right to privacy ?
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this any different than employers reading your e-mail?
There's already statements from the Supreme Court that "While police, and even administrative enforcement personnel, conduct searches for the primary purpose of obtaining evidence for use in criminal or other enforcement proceedings, employers most frequently need to enter the offices and desks of their employees for legitimate work-related reasons wholly unrelated to illegal conduct.
"It sounds like in this case the employer had a policy regarding 25000 characters per month and they were enforcing a policy.
Arch(Pagenet) didn't have much in the way of message security anyway so this seems thatthe employer could get access quite easily to the messages, especially if they were the account holder.Since Text Messages and E-Mails are handled by third parties, wouldn't this also apply to the recent ruling that you don't have a right to privacy?
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437944</id>
	<title>Because of this:</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1260796860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Under an informal policy adopted by a police lieutenant, those who paid the excess charges themselves would not have their messages inspected."</p><p>This case will probably set no clear precedent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Under an informal policy adopted by a police lieutenant , those who paid the excess charges themselves would not have their messages inspected .
" This case will probably set no clear precedent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Under an informal policy adopted by a police lieutenant, those who paid the excess charges themselves would not have their messages inspected.
"This case will probably set no clear precedent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30444928</id>
	<title>Re:Paid</title>
	<author>clone53421</author>
	<datestamp>1260895980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A work phone, paid for by the workplace, should be allowed to be inspected by the workplace.</p></div><p>...and it could be, as long as it was done routinely, consistently, and (if impractical to inspect <em>all</em> employees&rsquo; devices) randomly, without bias.</p><p>Putting all the employees&rsquo; names in a database and pulling a random name every week to have the employee&rsquo;s texting history reviewed would be an acceptable implementation of this policy. &ldquo;Randomly&rdquo; deciding to inspect an employee&rsquo;s texting history is not acceptable... and they didn&rsquo;t even have precedent for doing that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A work phone , paid for by the workplace , should be allowed to be inspected by the workplace....and it could be , as long as it was done routinely , consistently , and ( if impractical to inspect all employees    devices ) randomly , without bias.Putting all the employees    names in a database and pulling a random name every week to have the employee    s texting history reviewed would be an acceptable implementation of this policy .
   Randomly    deciding to inspect an employee    s texting history is not acceptable... and they didn    t even have precedent for doing that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A work phone, paid for by the workplace, should be allowed to be inspected by the workplace....and it could be, as long as it was done routinely, consistently, and (if impractical to inspect all employees’ devices) randomly, without bias.Putting all the employees’ names in a database and pulling a random name every week to have the employee’s texting history reviewed would be an acceptable implementation of this policy.
“Randomly” deciding to inspect an employee’s texting history is not acceptable... and they didn’t even have precedent for doing that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30440144</id>
	<title>The worm turns!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260810000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide...." Sound familiar?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If you 're not doing anything wrong , you do n't have anything to hide.... " Sound familiar ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide...." Sound familiar?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438648</id>
	<title>Re:why is this even in question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260800160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Look, it's simple: if your employer owns a device, and allows you to use it, you are not to <b>ever</b> use it for personal reasons</p></div><p>I call bullshit.  I can't make incidental personal calls on a landline phone on my desk at work?  Sure that could be prohibited if my employer chose to have such a policy, but if they wanted to be so unreasonably controlling, I wouldn't work there.  So I think you're being a bit of an extremist in your statement -- a policy can only be violated if such a policy exists; but if no such policy exists, then there isn't a violation.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>nor should you ever expect even the slightest amount of privacy for communications using the device.</p></div><p>I do agree with you on that one.  You want privacy, use your own damn device.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , it 's simple : if your employer owns a device , and allows you to use it , you are not to ever use it for personal reasonsI call bullshit .
I ca n't make incidental personal calls on a landline phone on my desk at work ?
Sure that could be prohibited if my employer chose to have such a policy , but if they wanted to be so unreasonably controlling , I would n't work there .
So I think you 're being a bit of an extremist in your statement -- a policy can only be violated if such a policy exists ; but if no such policy exists , then there is n't a violation.nor should you ever expect even the slightest amount of privacy for communications using the device.I do agree with you on that one .
You want privacy , use your own damn device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, it's simple: if your employer owns a device, and allows you to use it, you are not to ever use it for personal reasonsI call bullshit.
I can't make incidental personal calls on a landline phone on my desk at work?
Sure that could be prohibited if my employer chose to have such a policy, but if they wanted to be so unreasonably controlling, I wouldn't work there.
So I think you're being a bit of an extremist in your statement -- a policy can only be violated if such a policy exists; but if no such policy exists, then there isn't a violation.nor should you ever expect even the slightest amount of privacy for communications using the device.I do agree with you on that one.
You want privacy, use your own damn device.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30440326</id>
	<title>Re:why is this even in question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260811800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with this logic is that every one is guilty of using their employers phones or other facilities at one time or another for personal use. When you have a rule that everyone ignores you get arbitrary and capricious actions against individuals that someone wants to punish for totally unrelated issues. I recall that there was a Director of the FBI (Judge Sessions I believe) who refused to resign when asked by President Clinton. The White House actually examined his phone records and found that he had called his wife on several occasions from an office telephone which of course is a violation of some obscure Federal policy.<br>I agree that in the instant case, the actual content of the messages, sexual or otherwise is irrelevant unless the messages themselves are illegal like an extortion demand or a murder threat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with this logic is that every one is guilty of using their employers phones or other facilities at one time or another for personal use .
When you have a rule that everyone ignores you get arbitrary and capricious actions against individuals that someone wants to punish for totally unrelated issues .
I recall that there was a Director of the FBI ( Judge Sessions I believe ) who refused to resign when asked by President Clinton .
The White House actually examined his phone records and found that he had called his wife on several occasions from an office telephone which of course is a violation of some obscure Federal policy.I agree that in the instant case , the actual content of the messages , sexual or otherwise is irrelevant unless the messages themselves are illegal like an extortion demand or a murder threat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with this logic is that every one is guilty of using their employers phones or other facilities at one time or another for personal use.
When you have a rule that everyone ignores you get arbitrary and capricious actions against individuals that someone wants to punish for totally unrelated issues.
I recall that there was a Director of the FBI (Judge Sessions I believe) who refused to resign when asked by President Clinton.
The White House actually examined his phone records and found that he had called his wife on several occasions from an office telephone which of course is a violation of some obscure Federal policy.I agree that in the instant case, the actual content of the messages, sexual or otherwise is irrelevant unless the messages themselves are illegal like an extortion demand or a murder threat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30444586</id>
	<title>Re:Does the sexting really matter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260894780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So if I were to exchange sexually explicit messages with my wife</p></div></blockquote><p>I was agreeing with your response until this line. On slashdot, the words "my wife" destroys any credibility that you are telling the truth about anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So if I were to exchange sexually explicit messages with my wifeI was agreeing with your response until this line .
On slashdot , the words " my wife " destroys any credibility that you are telling the truth about anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if I were to exchange sexually explicit messages with my wifeI was agreeing with your response until this line.
On slashdot, the words "my wife" destroys any credibility that you are telling the truth about anything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436856</id>
	<title>There's the kicker:</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1260791880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the Summary:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> The lieutenant eventually changed his mind</p> </div><p>And that's all thats required to know they were in the wrong. If they were going to change their mind, they need to inform their employees that the change is occuring, and that his privacy will then be at stake. They should only be able to check pager transcriptions after that day.</p><p>You can't say one thing and then do another, even if it's to stop sexually implicit messages. Deceipt cannot be tolerated at any level of government.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the Summary : The lieutenant eventually changed his mind And that 's all thats required to know they were in the wrong .
If they were going to change their mind , they need to inform their employees that the change is occuring , and that his privacy will then be at stake .
They should only be able to check pager transcriptions after that day.You ca n't say one thing and then do another , even if it 's to stop sexually implicit messages .
Deceipt can not be tolerated at any level of government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the Summary: The lieutenant eventually changed his mind And that's all thats required to know they were in the wrong.
If they were going to change their mind, they need to inform their employees that the change is occuring, and that his privacy will then be at stake.
They should only be able to check pager transcriptions after that day.You can't say one thing and then do another, even if it's to stop sexually implicit messages.
Deceipt cannot be tolerated at any level of government.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437042</id>
	<title>Wait a minute...</title>
	<author>Gordonjcp</author>
	<datestamp>1260792780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They use pagers?  And, more to the point, they *pay* to use pagers?  They should have been using SMS on their mobile phones.  Personal phones, rather than employer-supplied ones.  That way it would be free from employer snooping, and free to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They use pagers ?
And , more to the point , they * pay * to use pagers ?
They should have been using SMS on their mobile phones .
Personal phones , rather than employer-supplied ones .
That way it would be free from employer snooping , and free to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They use pagers?
And, more to the point, they *pay* to use pagers?
They should have been using SMS on their mobile phones.
Personal phones, rather than employer-supplied ones.
That way it would be free from employer snooping, and free to use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30441388</id>
	<title>estoppel</title>
	<author>DamonHD</author>
	<datestamp>1260910440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This seems to me (IANAL) grounds for 'estoppel': the cop relied on the statements of his superior who then then reneged on them without notice.</p><p>Rgds</p><p>Damon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems to me ( IANAL ) grounds for 'estoppel ' : the cop relied on the statements of his superior who then then reneged on them without notice.RgdsDamon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems to me (IANAL) grounds for 'estoppel': the cop relied on the statements of his superior who then then reneged on them without notice.RgdsDamon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302</id>
	<title>why is this even in question?</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1260794220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I heard this on NPR this morning and the fact that they were using the phrase "grey area" astounded me.</p><p>Look, it's simple: if your employer owns a device, and allows you to use it, you are not to <b>ever</b> use it for personal reasons, nor should you ever expect even the slightest amount of privacy for communications using the device. Even (and probably especially) if they give you permission for personal use. That goes for cell phones, pagers, computers, slide rules, everything. That means you do not log into personal Facebook, Google, or Hotmail at work. You do not use the company phone to call home. If you do any of these, you've 1) probably violated the terms of your employment and 2) have given the company/government permission to peer into all personal communications made with your employer's equipment.</p><p>You have explicit rights (in most cases) to privacy and use of the property that you actually own. That's it, the line is drawn there. I can't believe there is any controversy over this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard this on NPR this morning and the fact that they were using the phrase " grey area " astounded me.Look , it 's simple : if your employer owns a device , and allows you to use it , you are not to ever use it for personal reasons , nor should you ever expect even the slightest amount of privacy for communications using the device .
Even ( and probably especially ) if they give you permission for personal use .
That goes for cell phones , pagers , computers , slide rules , everything .
That means you do not log into personal Facebook , Google , or Hotmail at work .
You do not use the company phone to call home .
If you do any of these , you 've 1 ) probably violated the terms of your employment and 2 ) have given the company/government permission to peer into all personal communications made with your employer 's equipment.You have explicit rights ( in most cases ) to privacy and use of the property that you actually own .
That 's it , the line is drawn there .
I ca n't believe there is any controversy over this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard this on NPR this morning and the fact that they were using the phrase "grey area" astounded me.Look, it's simple: if your employer owns a device, and allows you to use it, you are not to ever use it for personal reasons, nor should you ever expect even the slightest amount of privacy for communications using the device.
Even (and probably especially) if they give you permission for personal use.
That goes for cell phones, pagers, computers, slide rules, everything.
That means you do not log into personal Facebook, Google, or Hotmail at work.
You do not use the company phone to call home.
If you do any of these, you've 1) probably violated the terms of your employment and 2) have given the company/government permission to peer into all personal communications made with your employer's equipment.You have explicit rights (in most cases) to privacy and use of the property that you actually own.
That's it, the line is drawn there.
I can't believe there is any controversy over this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438152</id>
	<title>Re:why is this even in question?</title>
	<author>rahvin112</author>
	<datestamp>1260797700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless of course your employer told you that you could use it for personal use if you covered those charges. Then when that employer turns around and changes their mind without telling the employees and then takes action against said employee's for doing exactly what they were told they could do.</p><p>It's called lieing, not changing your mind. The supervisor lied to the employees, either that or he got angry at the employee in question and decided to change the policy for this one employee so he could find a reason to retaliate against him. Either way without formal notice that the policy had changed the employee is abrogated of any responsibility for personal use IMO and content is irrelevant unless it was creating a hostile work environment and he had the complaint to prove it. In that case he owed the employee a warning about the change in policy before taking action. The supervisor should be fired IMO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless of course your employer told you that you could use it for personal use if you covered those charges .
Then when that employer turns around and changes their mind without telling the employees and then takes action against said employee 's for doing exactly what they were told they could do.It 's called lieing , not changing your mind .
The supervisor lied to the employees , either that or he got angry at the employee in question and decided to change the policy for this one employee so he could find a reason to retaliate against him .
Either way without formal notice that the policy had changed the employee is abrogated of any responsibility for personal use IMO and content is irrelevant unless it was creating a hostile work environment and he had the complaint to prove it .
In that case he owed the employee a warning about the change in policy before taking action .
The supervisor should be fired IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless of course your employer told you that you could use it for personal use if you covered those charges.
Then when that employer turns around and changes their mind without telling the employees and then takes action against said employee's for doing exactly what they were told they could do.It's called lieing, not changing your mind.
The supervisor lied to the employees, either that or he got angry at the employee in question and decided to change the policy for this one employee so he could find a reason to retaliate against him.
Either way without formal notice that the policy had changed the employee is abrogated of any responsibility for personal use IMO and content is irrelevant unless it was creating a hostile work environment and he had the complaint to prove it.
In that case he owed the employee a warning about the change in policy before taking action.
The supervisor should be fired IMO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437050</id>
	<title>Police take oath of celebacy???</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1260792840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gimme a break. I didn't realise the police were clergy! What law was this guy breaking by sending sexually explicit messages? As for the issue of using police equipment for personal messages, if this was permitted at the time, again what's the problem? If he was breaking a law why isn't this what we're hearing about rather than the fact that he liked to talk dirty?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gim me a break .
I did n't realise the police were clergy !
What law was this guy breaking by sending sexually explicit messages ?
As for the issue of using police equipment for personal messages , if this was permitted at the time , again what 's the problem ?
If he was breaking a law why is n't this what we 're hearing about rather than the fact that he liked to talk dirty ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gimme a break.
I didn't realise the police were clergy!
What law was this guy breaking by sending sexually explicit messages?
As for the issue of using police equipment for personal messages, if this was permitted at the time, again what's the problem?
If he was breaking a law why isn't this what we're hearing about rather than the fact that he liked to talk dirty?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30445434</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously, what did you expect to find...</title>
	<author>Ogive17</author>
	<datestamp>1260897780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have written emails to friends, family, and my girlfriend from my work laptop on almost a daily basis.  I would never send something that would later embarass me if it became public, but I know there is no expectation of privacy while on this laptop... regardless of what my boss told me.<br>
<br>
It's common sense.  When did this country lose it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have written emails to friends , family , and my girlfriend from my work laptop on almost a daily basis .
I would never send something that would later embarass me if it became public , but I know there is no expectation of privacy while on this laptop... regardless of what my boss told me .
It 's common sense .
When did this country lose it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have written emails to friends, family, and my girlfriend from my work laptop on almost a daily basis.
I would never send something that would later embarass me if it became public, but I know there is no expectation of privacy while on this laptop... regardless of what my boss told me.
It's common sense.
When did this country lose it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438278</id>
	<title>Re:Any different than E-Mail?</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1260798420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How is this any different than employers reading your e-mail?</p></div><p>Read the decision.<br>The contents of communications made using an RCS can be disclosed to the owner of the equipment (the city).<br>The contents of communications made using an ECS can only be disclosed with the consent of the sender or intended recipient.</p><p>The 9th Circuit Court decided that a two-way pager is an Electronic (ECS), and not Remote(RCS), Computing Service.<br>This makes all the difference in the world under California State law and the Constitution.</p><p>Ontop of that, the lieutenant's informal (yet consistently applied) policy was that if officers paid any excess charges, he wouldn't look at their texts. By itself, the 9th Circuit decided this created a reasonable right to privacy.</p><p>I'm not sure if they'd extend that logic to e-mail though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this any different than employers reading your e-mail ? Read the decision.The contents of communications made using an RCS can be disclosed to the owner of the equipment ( the city ) .The contents of communications made using an ECS can only be disclosed with the consent of the sender or intended recipient.The 9th Circuit Court decided that a two-way pager is an Electronic ( ECS ) , and not Remote ( RCS ) , Computing Service.This makes all the difference in the world under California State law and the Constitution.Ontop of that , the lieutenant 's informal ( yet consistently applied ) policy was that if officers paid any excess charges , he would n't look at their texts .
By itself , the 9th Circuit decided this created a reasonable right to privacy.I 'm not sure if they 'd extend that logic to e-mail though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this any different than employers reading your e-mail?Read the decision.The contents of communications made using an RCS can be disclosed to the owner of the equipment (the city).The contents of communications made using an ECS can only be disclosed with the consent of the sender or intended recipient.The 9th Circuit Court decided that a two-way pager is an Electronic (ECS), and not Remote(RCS), Computing Service.This makes all the difference in the world under California State law and the Constitution.Ontop of that, the lieutenant's informal (yet consistently applied) policy was that if officers paid any excess charges, he wouldn't look at their texts.
By itself, the 9th Circuit decided this created a reasonable right to privacy.I'm not sure if they'd extend that logic to e-mail though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30444006</id>
	<title>Re:why is this even in question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260892020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry me again.. Also if you think that's unprofessional behavior from a cop... it's about item 30000 down on the list of things your average cop needs to change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry me again.. Also if you think that 's unprofessional behavior from a cop... it 's about item 30000 down on the list of things your average cop needs to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry me again.. Also if you think that's unprofessional behavior from a cop... it's about item 30000 down on the list of things your average cop needs to change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438064</id>
	<title>Re:Paid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260797400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A work phone, paid for by the workplace, should be allowed to be inspected by the workplace.  Just like email.  Just like web traffic.</p></div><p>In germany you have to be careful as company if you do so. If you (even implicitely) allow private use of your email system you become a "content provider" just like an ISP and are *not allowed* to look at your employees emails, in case they contain private material. Really great if you get fired at such a company and can hinder them to use the mails in your account<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>That's why most companys (even the one I work for) have strict "no personal email, internet or files" in their contracts...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A work phone , paid for by the workplace , should be allowed to be inspected by the workplace .
Just like email .
Just like web traffic.In germany you have to be careful as company if you do so .
If you ( even implicitely ) allow private use of your email system you become a " content provider " just like an ISP and are * not allowed * to look at your employees emails , in case they contain private material .
Really great if you get fired at such a company and can hinder them to use the mails in your account : ) That 's why most companys ( even the one I work for ) have strict " no personal email , internet or files " in their contracts.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A work phone, paid for by the workplace, should be allowed to be inspected by the workplace.
Just like email.
Just like web traffic.In germany you have to be careful as company if you do so.
If you (even implicitely) allow private use of your email system you become a "content provider" just like an ISP and are *not allowed* to look at your employees emails, in case they contain private material.
Really great if you get fired at such a company and can hinder them to use the mails in your account :)That's why most companys (even the one I work for) have strict "no personal email, internet or files" in their contracts...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30439756</id>
	<title>Re:why is this even in question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260806820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, I enabled SSL for all gmail pages, pretty sure that means that the company cant see what I am doing unless they installed screen capture (which with how slow the thing is, maybe they did).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , I enabled SSL for all gmail pages , pretty sure that means that the company cant see what I am doing unless they installed screen capture ( which with how slow the thing is , maybe they did ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, I enabled SSL for all gmail pages, pretty sure that means that the company cant see what I am doing unless they installed screen capture (which with how slow the thing is, maybe they did).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437660</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30440534</id>
	<title>Re:Paid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260813780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the one difference that i see in your analogy is that the difference between cell/pager use and email/web traffic and other technologies in place at a workplace, I don't want anyone unrestricted access to my phone records, period. there aren't protective enough policies for the individual as it is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you should need a warrant for the same reason as inspecting your car, or whatever else<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ESPECIALLY if you are required to have it on you after-hours, and you were told you were able to use it, as long as you paid for overages... Why would they let you accrue overages if you weren't allowed to use it for personal use<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and what right do they have in willy-nilly access to your private life? If they give the privilege of personal use, and any transmission could be personal, then the personal rights must be upheld over the corporate property rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the one difference that i see in your analogy is that the difference between cell/pager use and email/web traffic and other technologies in place at a workplace , I do n't want anyone unrestricted access to my phone records , period .
there are n't protective enough policies for the individual as it is ... you should need a warrant for the same reason as inspecting your car , or whatever else ... ESPECIALLY if you are required to have it on you after-hours , and you were told you were able to use it , as long as you paid for overages... Why would they let you accrue overages if you were n't allowed to use it for personal use ... and what right do they have in willy-nilly access to your private life ?
If they give the privilege of personal use , and any transmission could be personal , then the personal rights must be upheld over the corporate property rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the one difference that i see in your analogy is that the difference between cell/pager use and email/web traffic and other technologies in place at a workplace, I don't want anyone unrestricted access to my phone records, period.
there aren't protective enough policies for the individual as it is ... you should need a warrant for the same reason as inspecting your car, or whatever else ... ESPECIALLY if you are required to have it on you after-hours, and you were told you were able to use it, as long as you paid for overages... Why would they let you accrue overages if you weren't allowed to use it for personal use ... and what right do they have in willy-nilly access to your private life?
If they give the privilege of personal use, and any transmission could be personal, then the personal rights must be upheld over the corporate property rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436776</id>
	<title>Oh wait, what?  This again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260791580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An organization has the right to inspect how its resources are being used?  Madness!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An organization has the right to inspect how its resources are being used ?
Madness !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An organization has the right to inspect how its resources are being used?
Madness!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30442010</id>
	<title>Re:Paid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260874860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No privacy is of bigger importance then money.</p><p>If you borrow a pen from work and you write a personal letter at home, can they still read this letter, even when company resources were used?<br>Let's say the sheet of paper was also of your employer, does that change a thing?</p><p>Perhaps you would argue that it's not done during working hours, I would say your employer still should not be able to read your letter.</p><p>I do feel that your employer can demand you don't use your working time for private matters, but for that they don't have to see your private data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No privacy is of bigger importance then money.If you borrow a pen from work and you write a personal letter at home , can they still read this letter , even when company resources were used ? Let 's say the sheet of paper was also of your employer , does that change a thing ? Perhaps you would argue that it 's not done during working hours , I would say your employer still should not be able to read your letter.I do feel that your employer can demand you do n't use your working time for private matters , but for that they do n't have to see your private data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No privacy is of bigger importance then money.If you borrow a pen from work and you write a personal letter at home, can they still read this letter, even when company resources were used?Let's say the sheet of paper was also of your employer, does that change a thing?Perhaps you would argue that it's not done during working hours, I would say your employer still should not be able to read your letter.I do feel that your employer can demand you don't use your working time for private matters, but for that they don't have to see your private data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436814</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30439816</id>
	<title>Maybe you should do the math?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260807300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In one month in 2002, only 57 of more than 456 of those messages were related to official business"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... since the employer paid for the first 25k of characters that means this employee would have had to have averaged slightly over 438 characters per-message to claim that the employer wasn't paying for any of the messages the employer looked at.  NOT BLOODLY LIKELY.</p><p>So since the business (government actually) *did* foot the bill for this cop's sexting, why *shouldn't* they be allowed to monitor his sexting?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In one month in 2002 , only 57 of more than 456 of those messages were related to official business " ... since the employer paid for the first 25k of characters that means this employee would have had to have averaged slightly over 438 characters per-message to claim that the employer was n't paying for any of the messages the employer looked at .
NOT BLOODLY LIKELY.So since the business ( government actually ) * did * foot the bill for this cop 's sexting , why * should n't * they be allowed to monitor his sexting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In one month in 2002, only 57 of more than 456 of those messages were related to official business" ... since the employer paid for the first 25k of characters that means this employee would have had to have averaged slightly over 438 characters per-message to claim that the employer wasn't paying for any of the messages the employer looked at.
NOT BLOODLY LIKELY.So since the business (government actually) *did* foot the bill for this cop's sexting, why *shouldn't* they be allowed to monitor his sexting?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30447854</id>
	<title>Re:why is this even in question?  TAXES</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260906120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called a fringe benefit.. valued employees who aren't shit people doing shit jobs get them.   And under the tax law you have to pay for them on your taxes.. Company autos and phones (for me it's $60/year for phone and a free rental car anywhere I am as long as there is one available for a few bucks per use.. which is a good deal).</p><p>You did your best to sound intelligent, but like the other slashpies on here.. your efforts to look as smart as you think you are is undermined by your limited exposre to the world 300 feet or more from your access point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called a fringe benefit.. valued employees who are n't shit people doing shit jobs get them .
And under the tax law you have to pay for them on your taxes.. Company autos and phones ( for me it 's $ 60/year for phone and a free rental car anywhere I am as long as there is one available for a few bucks per use.. which is a good deal ) .You did your best to sound intelligent , but like the other slashpies on here.. your efforts to look as smart as you think you are is undermined by your limited exposre to the world 300 feet or more from your access point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called a fringe benefit.. valued employees who aren't shit people doing shit jobs get them.
And under the tax law you have to pay for them on your taxes.. Company autos and phones (for me it's $60/year for phone and a free rental car anywhere I am as long as there is one available for a few bucks per use.. which is a good deal).You did your best to sound intelligent, but like the other slashpies on here.. your efforts to look as smart as you think you are is undermined by your limited exposre to the world 300 feet or more from your access point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438106</id>
	<title>Re:Any different than E-Mail?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1260797460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Since Text Messages and E-Mails are handled by third parties, wouldn't this<br>&gt; also apply to the recent ruling that you don't have a right to privacy?</p><p>Citation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Since Text Messages and E-Mails are handled by third parties , would n't this &gt; also apply to the recent ruling that you do n't have a right to privacy ? Citation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Since Text Messages and E-Mails are handled by third parties, wouldn't this&gt; also apply to the recent ruling that you don't have a right to privacy?Citation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30441020</id>
	<title>New gov tyranny to fix old gov tyrany...</title>
	<author>AlexLibman</author>
	<datestamp>1260818520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government enforcement of unnatural constructs like "intellectual property" and the FCC drastically limits media competition, where content providers would be forced to find a way to attract viewers on the basis of viewer experience.  Instead the government is all but forcing you to watch commercials <i>A Clockwork Orange</i> style by outlawing distribution alternatives like <i>The Pirate Bay</i>.  And now they want to gain your loyalty by slapping this little bandaid on your viewing experience, while violating the rights of the broadcasters in the process...  Ridiculous...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government enforcement of unnatural constructs like " intellectual property " and the FCC drastically limits media competition , where content providers would be forced to find a way to attract viewers on the basis of viewer experience .
Instead the government is all but forcing you to watch commercials A Clockwork Orange style by outlawing distribution alternatives like The Pirate Bay .
And now they want to gain your loyalty by slapping this little bandaid on your viewing experience , while violating the rights of the broadcasters in the process... Ridiculous.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government enforcement of unnatural constructs like "intellectual property" and the FCC drastically limits media competition, where content providers would be forced to find a way to attract viewers on the basis of viewer experience.
Instead the government is all but forcing you to watch commercials A Clockwork Orange style by outlawing distribution alternatives like The Pirate Bay.
And now they want to gain your loyalty by slapping this little bandaid on your viewing experience, while violating the rights of the broadcasters in the process...  Ridiculous...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436988</id>
	<title>Re:Oh wait, what? This again?</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1260792540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>An organization has the right to inspect how its resources are being used?  Madness!</p></div><p>Yeah. Unfortunately, I was sued when I wanted to make sure the ladies restroom was being used properly. I did it discretely with a peep hole and I didn't do it personally (I'm not a perv) - I had a video cam taking movies and I put them on the web for others to check for me so I wouldn't be accused of being a peeping Tom - all for a small fee to pay for bandwidth, of course.</p><p>God! You just can't please some people!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>An organization has the right to inspect how its resources are being used ?
Madness ! Yeah. Unfortunately , I was sued when I wanted to make sure the ladies restroom was being used properly .
I did it discretely with a peep hole and I did n't do it personally ( I 'm not a perv ) - I had a video cam taking movies and I put them on the web for others to check for me so I would n't be accused of being a peeping Tom - all for a small fee to pay for bandwidth , of course.God !
You just ca n't please some people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An organization has the right to inspect how its resources are being used?
Madness!Yeah. Unfortunately, I was sued when I wanted to make sure the ladies restroom was being used properly.
I did it discretely with a peep hole and I didn't do it personally (I'm not a perv) - I had a video cam taking movies and I put them on the web for others to check for me so I wouldn't be accused of being a peeping Tom - all for a small fee to pay for bandwidth, of course.God!
You just can't please some people!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437156</id>
	<title>Re:There's the kicker:</title>
	<author>Eevee</author>
	<datestamp>1260793380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who is "they"? The Police department? They didn't change their mind, and had always explicitly stated that messages could be monitored. They The lieutenant? He didn't have the authority to make changes in policy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is " they " ?
The Police department ?
They did n't change their mind , and had always explicitly stated that messages could be monitored .
They The lieutenant ?
He did n't have the authority to make changes in policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is "they"?
The Police department?
They didn't change their mind, and had always explicitly stated that messages could be monitored.
They The lieutenant?
He didn't have the authority to make changes in policy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437168</id>
	<title>Re:Oh wait, what? This again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260793440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're really trying to put a mis-informative spin on this.  The organization clearly indicated that you could use the pagers for personal use, and if you used them heavily for personal use, you would pay out of your own pocket for the privilege.</p><p>So now that he's paying for the service out of his own pocket, and using it for personal use (never mind what kind of personal use), the organization changes it's policy.  It decides that simply owning the hardware in question supersedes all prior agreement and they can change their policy retroactively and inspect that which they agreed to not care about.</p><p>If you're for the police department on this one, then basically you are for an organization not being bound to its word on agreements of how resources are to be used, but employees being bound to their word on how those same resources are to be used.  Such a position is clearly an invitation for an organization to abuse any resource bound agreement.  Considering that the police department could have avoided this entire issue by either denying personal use, by outlining what kinds of personal use were acceptable, by changing their agreement non-retroactively, or by not changing their agreement, it's hard to side with them (even if they bought the pager).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're really trying to put a mis-informative spin on this .
The organization clearly indicated that you could use the pagers for personal use , and if you used them heavily for personal use , you would pay out of your own pocket for the privilege.So now that he 's paying for the service out of his own pocket , and using it for personal use ( never mind what kind of personal use ) , the organization changes it 's policy .
It decides that simply owning the hardware in question supersedes all prior agreement and they can change their policy retroactively and inspect that which they agreed to not care about.If you 're for the police department on this one , then basically you are for an organization not being bound to its word on agreements of how resources are to be used , but employees being bound to their word on how those same resources are to be used .
Such a position is clearly an invitation for an organization to abuse any resource bound agreement .
Considering that the police department could have avoided this entire issue by either denying personal use , by outlining what kinds of personal use were acceptable , by changing their agreement non-retroactively , or by not changing their agreement , it 's hard to side with them ( even if they bought the pager ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're really trying to put a mis-informative spin on this.
The organization clearly indicated that you could use the pagers for personal use, and if you used them heavily for personal use, you would pay out of your own pocket for the privilege.So now that he's paying for the service out of his own pocket, and using it for personal use (never mind what kind of personal use), the organization changes it's policy.
It decides that simply owning the hardware in question supersedes all prior agreement and they can change their policy retroactively and inspect that which they agreed to not care about.If you're for the police department on this one, then basically you are for an organization not being bound to its word on agreements of how resources are to be used, but employees being bound to their word on how those same resources are to be used.
Such a position is clearly an invitation for an organization to abuse any resource bound agreement.
Considering that the police department could have avoided this entire issue by either denying personal use, by outlining what kinds of personal use were acceptable, by changing their agreement non-retroactively, or by not changing their agreement, it's hard to side with them (even if they bought the pager).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438026</id>
	<title>Re:why is this even in question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260797220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would hate to work with you...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would hate to work with you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would hate to work with you...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438988</id>
	<title>Re:why is this even in question?</title>
	<author>ffflala</author>
	<datestamp>1260802020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mod parent up</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mod parent up</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mod parent up</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438192</id>
	<title>Re:why is this even in question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260798060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You have explicit rights (in most cases) to privacy and use of the property that you actually own. That's it, the line is drawn there. I can't believe there is any controversy over this.</p></div><p>Of course there's controversy!  In case you haven't noticed, a vast majority of our "personal" data has wandered out onto networks and servers that none of us control.  This has been a gradual process going on for years, but the very attributes of modern networked computer systems make the real-world impact of these changes much greater now.  This has radically changed the landscape under which the 4th amendment (and a lot of other law) was originally conceived.  I'd say that review of the applicability of constitutional protections in modern contexts could be viewed as one of the most important roles of the SCOTUS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have explicit rights ( in most cases ) to privacy and use of the property that you actually own .
That 's it , the line is drawn there .
I ca n't believe there is any controversy over this.Of course there 's controversy !
In case you have n't noticed , a vast majority of our " personal " data has wandered out onto networks and servers that none of us control .
This has been a gradual process going on for years , but the very attributes of modern networked computer systems make the real-world impact of these changes much greater now .
This has radically changed the landscape under which the 4th amendment ( and a lot of other law ) was originally conceived .
I 'd say that review of the applicability of constitutional protections in modern contexts could be viewed as one of the most important roles of the SCOTUS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have explicit rights (in most cases) to privacy and use of the property that you actually own.
That's it, the line is drawn there.
I can't believe there is any controversy over this.Of course there's controversy!
In case you haven't noticed, a vast majority of our "personal" data has wandered out onto networks and servers that none of us control.
This has been a gradual process going on for years, but the very attributes of modern networked computer systems make the real-world impact of these changes much greater now.
This has radically changed the landscape under which the 4th amendment (and a lot of other law) was originally conceived.
I'd say that review of the applicability of constitutional protections in modern contexts could be viewed as one of the most important roles of the SCOTUS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438302</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260798540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The year is 2002, not 2009. SMS was not very prevalent at the time, and inter-provider SMS was still occasionally glitchy. That was the time of dedicated alphanumeric pagers waning in popularity while the 'cool kids who wanted to be like the drug dealers' were discovering SMS on their phones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The year is 2002 , not 2009 .
SMS was not very prevalent at the time , and inter-provider SMS was still occasionally glitchy .
That was the time of dedicated alphanumeric pagers waning in popularity while the 'cool kids who wanted to be like the drug dealers ' were discovering SMS on their phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The year is 2002, not 2009.
SMS was not very prevalent at the time, and inter-provider SMS was still occasionally glitchy.
That was the time of dedicated alphanumeric pagers waning in popularity while the 'cool kids who wanted to be like the drug dealers' were discovering SMS on their phones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437924</id>
	<title>Re:Wait a minute...</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1260796740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Personal phones, rather than employer-supplied ones. That way it would be free from employer snooping, and free to use</i> </p><p>and the ever-paranoid geek won't see any problems at all in allowing undocumented use of private phones and messaging services by police officers on duty?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personal phones , rather than employer-supplied ones .
That way it would be free from employer snooping , and free to use and the ever-paranoid geek wo n't see any problems at all in allowing undocumented use of private phones and messaging services by police officers on duty ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personal phones, rather than employer-supplied ones.
That way it would be free from employer snooping, and free to use and the ever-paranoid geek won't see any problems at all in allowing undocumented use of private phones and messaging services by police officers on duty?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438114</id>
	<title>Re:There's the kicker:</title>
	<author>TubeSteak</author>
	<datestamp>1260797520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The lieutenant eventually changed his mind</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And that's all thats required to know they were in the wrong</p></div></div><p>My WTF moment from the decision: the 9th Circuit Court declared that since FOIA requests aren't common,<br>the fact that the texts were public records didn't remove the users' expectation of privacy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The lieutenant eventually changed his mindAnd that 's all thats required to know they were in the wrongMy WTF moment from the decision : the 9th Circuit Court declared that since FOIA requests are n't common,the fact that the texts were public records did n't remove the users ' expectation of privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lieutenant eventually changed his mindAnd that's all thats required to know they were in the wrongMy WTF moment from the decision: the 9th Circuit Court declared that since FOIA requests aren't common,the fact that the texts were public records didn't remove the users' expectation of privacy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30439240</id>
	<title>Re:Oh wait, what? This again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260803460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you know that many government agencies, as well as private businesses, charge employees for the "free" business phones and devices they use?  Under the tax law in the United States, employees are to be taxed a certain amount of the bill for their business lines.  When I was in law enforcement, we were charged taxes on our Nextel lines and we had to pay for any personal use.  Short of us trying to engage in criminal activities or attempting to choke someone with the phone itself, we were never bothered with how we used the phones.</p><p>My girlfriend, who is now my wife, sent me numerous sexually explicit text messages.  Other than one incident, when the, then captain of our unit, decided to have a little fun and post a conversation of ours in a break room, nothing was ever said about how we used the phones.  We had to pay for all incidental use, outside of normal police function, which meant that we were protected under the fourth amendment like a private citizen.  You may disagree, but the law does not really care what you think.</p><p>Some citizens tried to argue that the government owned the phones, but they were dead wrong.  Along with paying non-job related use, the officers had to pay for the device.  It was only if the device was damage in the course of duty that the government would pay for the device.  I know that many people dilude themselves into thinking that law enforcement officers are robots that only behave a certain way and never have fun.  In reality, those in law enforcement enjoy sex, alcohol, and fun(wait, those are essentially the same thing).</p><p>Sorry kids, but cops, just like your parents, do have sex and enjoy it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you know that many government agencies , as well as private businesses , charge employees for the " free " business phones and devices they use ?
Under the tax law in the United States , employees are to be taxed a certain amount of the bill for their business lines .
When I was in law enforcement , we were charged taxes on our Nextel lines and we had to pay for any personal use .
Short of us trying to engage in criminal activities or attempting to choke someone with the phone itself , we were never bothered with how we used the phones.My girlfriend , who is now my wife , sent me numerous sexually explicit text messages .
Other than one incident , when the , then captain of our unit , decided to have a little fun and post a conversation of ours in a break room , nothing was ever said about how we used the phones .
We had to pay for all incidental use , outside of normal police function , which meant that we were protected under the fourth amendment like a private citizen .
You may disagree , but the law does not really care what you think.Some citizens tried to argue that the government owned the phones , but they were dead wrong .
Along with paying non-job related use , the officers had to pay for the device .
It was only if the device was damage in the course of duty that the government would pay for the device .
I know that many people dilude themselves into thinking that law enforcement officers are robots that only behave a certain way and never have fun .
In reality , those in law enforcement enjoy sex , alcohol , and fun ( wait , those are essentially the same thing ) .Sorry kids , but cops , just like your parents , do have sex and enjoy it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you know that many government agencies, as well as private businesses, charge employees for the "free" business phones and devices they use?
Under the tax law in the United States, employees are to be taxed a certain amount of the bill for their business lines.
When I was in law enforcement, we were charged taxes on our Nextel lines and we had to pay for any personal use.
Short of us trying to engage in criminal activities or attempting to choke someone with the phone itself, we were never bothered with how we used the phones.My girlfriend, who is now my wife, sent me numerous sexually explicit text messages.
Other than one incident, when the, then captain of our unit, decided to have a little fun and post a conversation of ours in a break room, nothing was ever said about how we used the phones.
We had to pay for all incidental use, outside of normal police function, which meant that we were protected under the fourth amendment like a private citizen.
You may disagree, but the law does not really care what you think.Some citizens tried to argue that the government owned the phones, but they were dead wrong.
Along with paying non-job related use, the officers had to pay for the device.
It was only if the device was damage in the course of duty that the government would pay for the device.
I know that many people dilude themselves into thinking that law enforcement officers are robots that only behave a certain way and never have fun.
In reality, those in law enforcement enjoy sex, alcohol, and fun(wait, those are essentially the same thing).Sorry kids, but cops, just like your parents, do have sex and enjoy it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436814</id>
	<title>Paid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260791760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A work phone, paid for by the workplace, should be allowed to be inspected by the workplace.  Just like email.  Just like web traffic.  Any abuse of this system, however, should be punished harshly and swiftly.  If you want to sext each other, get your own damn phones.  I'm sure evidence logs don't need a whole lot of, "Lol hang on let me beat this black guy for being black" mixed with "Done beating him here's a picture of my dick" when at trials.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A work phone , paid for by the workplace , should be allowed to be inspected by the workplace .
Just like email .
Just like web traffic .
Any abuse of this system , however , should be punished harshly and swiftly .
If you want to sext each other , get your own damn phones .
I 'm sure evidence logs do n't need a whole lot of , " Lol hang on let me beat this black guy for being black " mixed with " Done beating him here 's a picture of my dick " when at trials .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A work phone, paid for by the workplace, should be allowed to be inspected by the workplace.
Just like email.
Just like web traffic.
Any abuse of this system, however, should be punished harshly and swiftly.
If you want to sext each other, get your own damn phones.
I'm sure evidence logs don't need a whole lot of, "Lol hang on let me beat this black guy for being black" mixed with "Done beating him here's a picture of my dick" when at trials.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436904</id>
	<title>Partial private use</title>
	<author>GravityStar</author>
	<datestamp>1260792120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems clear to me that the SWAT team expected the pagers to used both for business reasons and for private reasons. Otherwise they should have reimbursed all use of the pager, regardless of amount of characters used, *AND* have had a policy of "no private use allowed".</p><p>The percentage of private vs work messages doesn't matter; because even an average of 1 work message a month could completely justify the cost of having the pager.</p><p>In any case, the sexual nature of the content shouldn't be relevant. It's private use, doesn't matter if you're sending/recieving "walk the dog" messages vs "fuck me like a dog" messages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems clear to me that the SWAT team expected the pagers to used both for business reasons and for private reasons .
Otherwise they should have reimbursed all use of the pager , regardless of amount of characters used , * AND * have had a policy of " no private use allowed " .The percentage of private vs work messages does n't matter ; because even an average of 1 work message a month could completely justify the cost of having the pager.In any case , the sexual nature of the content should n't be relevant .
It 's private use , does n't matter if you 're sending/recieving " walk the dog " messages vs " fuck me like a dog " messages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems clear to me that the SWAT team expected the pagers to used both for business reasons and for private reasons.
Otherwise they should have reimbursed all use of the pager, regardless of amount of characters used, *AND* have had a policy of "no private use allowed".The percentage of private vs work messages doesn't matter; because even an average of 1 work message a month could completely justify the cost of having the pager.In any case, the sexual nature of the content shouldn't be relevant.
It's private use, doesn't matter if you're sending/recieving "walk the dog" messages vs "fuck me like a dog" messages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30440676</id>
	<title>Because there are laws.</title>
	<author>Oxford\_Comma\_Lover</author>
	<datestamp>1260814980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IANAL, but it's not as simple as you make it out to be.  While the idea that you should never use an employer-provided advice for personal reasons is a good one to guard your privacy, that doesn't mean there's no law surrounding what the employer can do to its employees.  When the employer is the government, the case is especially complex because the government must follow the fourth amendment, which guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.  (This is applicable to the state governments because of the 14th Amendment.)  But what does unreasonable mean, and what constitutes a search?  The Constitution is vague (deliberately, and probably to our benefit), so the meanings change over time as social expectations change, and the Courts have to try to figure out the answers not to the theoretical world where nobody uses a device provided by an employer with an expectation of privacy, but to the actual world where people do have expectations of privacy in private communications made at work--even if nobody in the tech community would consider that expectation reasonable.  This is all complicated more by a separate statutory basis for giving the employee an expectation of privacy in his communication--the Court of Appeals held that a statute provided an extra protection in this case, at least potentially (we'll have to wait for the SCT to rule to hear the last word).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IANAL , but it 's not as simple as you make it out to be .
While the idea that you should never use an employer-provided advice for personal reasons is a good one to guard your privacy , that does n't mean there 's no law surrounding what the employer can do to its employees .
When the employer is the government , the case is especially complex because the government must follow the fourth amendment , which guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure .
( This is applicable to the state governments because of the 14th Amendment .
) But what does unreasonable mean , and what constitutes a search ?
The Constitution is vague ( deliberately , and probably to our benefit ) , so the meanings change over time as social expectations change , and the Courts have to try to figure out the answers not to the theoretical world where nobody uses a device provided by an employer with an expectation of privacy , but to the actual world where people do have expectations of privacy in private communications made at work--even if nobody in the tech community would consider that expectation reasonable .
This is all complicated more by a separate statutory basis for giving the employee an expectation of privacy in his communication--the Court of Appeals held that a statute provided an extra protection in this case , at least potentially ( we 'll have to wait for the SCT to rule to hear the last word ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IANAL, but it's not as simple as you make it out to be.
While the idea that you should never use an employer-provided advice for personal reasons is a good one to guard your privacy, that doesn't mean there's no law surrounding what the employer can do to its employees.
When the employer is the government, the case is especially complex because the government must follow the fourth amendment, which guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
(This is applicable to the state governments because of the 14th Amendment.
)  But what does unreasonable mean, and what constitutes a search?
The Constitution is vague (deliberately, and probably to our benefit), so the meanings change over time as social expectations change, and the Courts have to try to figure out the answers not to the theoretical world where nobody uses a device provided by an employer with an expectation of privacy, but to the actual world where people do have expectations of privacy in private communications made at work--even if nobody in the tech community would consider that expectation reasonable.
This is all complicated more by a separate statutory basis for giving the employee an expectation of privacy in his communication--the Court of Appeals held that a statute provided an extra protection in this case, at least potentially (we'll have to wait for the SCT to rule to hear the last word).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438970</id>
	<title>Re:Any different than E-Mail?</title>
	<author>Virtucon</author>
	<datestamp>1260801900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, I agree with most of that however pager systems are very much store and forward systems like E-Mail.  Messages come in, are stored and forwarded to other systems and ultimately delivered to the pager.  Unlike E-Mail there isn't an associated "durability" of the data once delivery is complete.  But are we arguing that the technology denotes the privacy?  I would hope not.  Yes, I agree that if it's your "personal" communications on "your device" then there should be an assumption of privacy.</p><p>I'll cite the Kobe Bryant incident where Text Messages from his accuser were retrieved and used by the prosecution to build a failed case.  Did she have the right to privacy there?  No, it was a criminal case but there were messages stored for law enforcement purposes.  We can thank certain paranoid legislation for that.</p><p>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5151987</p><p>I guess this all comes down to the fact that if you wouldn't say it to a member of the clergy or a cop, don't send it in a Text Message.</p><p>It sounds that the Supreme Court should take this up and clarify the issue but given the conservative nature of the court I sincerely doubt that our privacy rights will be upheld and another mantra of "well, you don't have an expectation of privacy..  blah..."  Since I work in DC, I'd love to take some time off work and go see the arguments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I agree with most of that however pager systems are very much store and forward systems like E-Mail .
Messages come in , are stored and forwarded to other systems and ultimately delivered to the pager .
Unlike E-Mail there is n't an associated " durability " of the data once delivery is complete .
But are we arguing that the technology denotes the privacy ?
I would hope not .
Yes , I agree that if it 's your " personal " communications on " your device " then there should be an assumption of privacy.I 'll cite the Kobe Bryant incident where Text Messages from his accuser were retrieved and used by the prosecution to build a failed case .
Did she have the right to privacy there ?
No , it was a criminal case but there were messages stored for law enforcement purposes .
We can thank certain paranoid legislation for that.http : //www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5151987I guess this all comes down to the fact that if you would n't say it to a member of the clergy or a cop , do n't send it in a Text Message.It sounds that the Supreme Court should take this up and clarify the issue but given the conservative nature of the court I sincerely doubt that our privacy rights will be upheld and another mantra of " well , you do n't have an expectation of privacy.. blah... " Since I work in DC , I 'd love to take some time off work and go see the arguments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I agree with most of that however pager systems are very much store and forward systems like E-Mail.
Messages come in, are stored and forwarded to other systems and ultimately delivered to the pager.
Unlike E-Mail there isn't an associated "durability" of the data once delivery is complete.
But are we arguing that the technology denotes the privacy?
I would hope not.
Yes, I agree that if it's your "personal" communications on "your device" then there should be an assumption of privacy.I'll cite the Kobe Bryant incident where Text Messages from his accuser were retrieved and used by the prosecution to build a failed case.
Did she have the right to privacy there?
No, it was a criminal case but there were messages stored for law enforcement purposes.
We can thank certain paranoid legislation for that.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5151987I guess this all comes down to the fact that if you wouldn't say it to a member of the clergy or a cop, don't send it in a Text Message.It sounds that the Supreme Court should take this up and clarify the issue but given the conservative nature of the court I sincerely doubt that our privacy rights will be upheld and another mantra of "well, you don't have an expectation of privacy..  blah..."  Since I work in DC, I'd love to take some time off work and go see the arguments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437220</id>
	<title>Does the sexting really matter?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260793740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>According to the trial judge, many of the messages 'were, to say the least, sexually explicit in nature.'</p></div><p>...and, what?  Is there a policy against it?  Was the other party a co-worker?  Why is this remotely relevant?</p><p>The policy states:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The use of inappropriate, derogatory, obscene, suggestive, defamatory, or harassing language in the e-mail system will not be tolerated.</p></div><p>So if I were to exchange sexually explicit messages with my wife, for example, how does the policy apply?  It would then be appropriate, favorable, natural, explicit, complimentary, and welcome.  What happens now?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>&ldquo;[u]sers should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using these resources.&rdquo;</p></div><p>And likewise, people peeking in my bedroom window should expect to see my hairy butt from time to time.  Don't want to see, don't look.  Look, you get what you asked for...</p><p>The closest thing I can find is this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Chief Scharf referred the matter to internal affairs &ldquo;to determine if someone was wasting . . . City time not doing work when they should be.&rdquo;</p></div><p>Hey, Chief, they were.  Investigation over.  Chances are, you were, too, unless you somehow work your entire shift without periods of non-work time.  That includes your bathroom time, sir.  The salient question should be, were any dollars actually wasted?  Was there any SWAT not getting done because of the excessive pager use?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the trial judge , many of the messages 'were , to say the least , sexually explicit in nature .
'...and , what ?
Is there a policy against it ?
Was the other party a co-worker ?
Why is this remotely relevant ? The policy states : The use of inappropriate , derogatory , obscene , suggestive , defamatory , or harassing language in the e-mail system will not be tolerated.So if I were to exchange sexually explicit messages with my wife , for example , how does the policy apply ?
It would then be appropriate , favorable , natural , explicit , complimentary , and welcome .
What happens now ?    [ u ] sers should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using these resources.    And likewise , people peeking in my bedroom window should expect to see my hairy butt from time to time .
Do n't want to see , do n't look .
Look , you get what you asked for...The closest thing I can find is this : Chief Scharf referred the matter to internal affairs    to determine if someone was wasting .
. .
City time not doing work when they should be.    Hey , Chief , they were .
Investigation over .
Chances are , you were , too , unless you somehow work your entire shift without periods of non-work time .
That includes your bathroom time , sir .
The salient question should be , were any dollars actually wasted ?
Was there any SWAT not getting done because of the excessive pager use ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the trial judge, many of the messages 'were, to say the least, sexually explicit in nature.
'...and, what?
Is there a policy against it?
Was the other party a co-worker?
Why is this remotely relevant?The policy states:The use of inappropriate, derogatory, obscene, suggestive, defamatory, or harassing language in the e-mail system will not be tolerated.So if I were to exchange sexually explicit messages with my wife, for example, how does the policy apply?
It would then be appropriate, favorable, natural, explicit, complimentary, and welcome.
What happens now?“[u]sers should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality when using these resources.”And likewise, people peeking in my bedroom window should expect to see my hairy butt from time to time.
Don't want to see, don't look.
Look, you get what you asked for...The closest thing I can find is this:Chief Scharf referred the matter to internal affairs “to determine if someone was wasting .
. .
City time not doing work when they should be.”Hey, Chief, they were.
Investigation over.
Chances are, you were, too, unless you somehow work your entire shift without periods of non-work time.
That includes your bathroom time, sir.
The salient question should be, were any dollars actually wasted?
Was there any SWAT not getting done because of the excessive pager use?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437438</id>
	<title>Re:Any different than E-Mail?</title>
	<author>Fallen Kell</author>
	<datestamp>1260794700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How is this any different than employers reading your e-mail?</p></div><p>Because employers are reading email on work computer paid for entirely by work. In this case, they were reading messages on a pager where the user was paying for any and all costs over the 25k characters a month. In this case, since the business is not footing the bill themselves, they do should not have a right to monitor how that device is entirely being used (aside from the fact that it may have exceeded the stated limit of 25k characters that they were going to pay to cover).<br> <br>As for your "</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Since Text Messages and E-Mails are handled by third parties, wouldn't this also apply to the recent ruling that you don't have a right to privacy?</p></div><p>", I would argue the same about home phone conversations, and even the US Mail, since in the case of the phone, the voice data is being sent over data lines that are possibly leased by one company, processed at a teleco center, most likely leased from yet another third party, on equipment owned or leased to the phone company the user has a contract with, and sent over lines owned or leased possibly by yet another third party, to the destination teleco center possibly owned or leased to yet another third party which on gear owned or leased to possibly yet another third party who is under contract by the other person/business which the call is being placed to... As for the US Mail, it is a "third party", in the by definition since it is not the sender or receiver of the document/letter/package. But, we clearly have stated that those situations have the expected right to privacy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this any different than employers reading your e-mail ? Because employers are reading email on work computer paid for entirely by work .
In this case , they were reading messages on a pager where the user was paying for any and all costs over the 25k characters a month .
In this case , since the business is not footing the bill themselves , they do should not have a right to monitor how that device is entirely being used ( aside from the fact that it may have exceeded the stated limit of 25k characters that they were going to pay to cover ) .
As for your " Since Text Messages and E-Mails are handled by third parties , would n't this also apply to the recent ruling that you do n't have a right to privacy ?
" , I would argue the same about home phone conversations , and even the US Mail , since in the case of the phone , the voice data is being sent over data lines that are possibly leased by one company , processed at a teleco center , most likely leased from yet another third party , on equipment owned or leased to the phone company the user has a contract with , and sent over lines owned or leased possibly by yet another third party , to the destination teleco center possibly owned or leased to yet another third party which on gear owned or leased to possibly yet another third party who is under contract by the other person/business which the call is being placed to... As for the US Mail , it is a " third party " , in the by definition since it is not the sender or receiver of the document/letter/package .
But , we clearly have stated that those situations have the expected right to privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this any different than employers reading your e-mail?Because employers are reading email on work computer paid for entirely by work.
In this case, they were reading messages on a pager where the user was paying for any and all costs over the 25k characters a month.
In this case, since the business is not footing the bill themselves, they do should not have a right to monitor how that device is entirely being used (aside from the fact that it may have exceeded the stated limit of 25k characters that they were going to pay to cover).
As for your "Since Text Messages and E-Mails are handled by third parties, wouldn't this also apply to the recent ruling that you don't have a right to privacy?
", I would argue the same about home phone conversations, and even the US Mail, since in the case of the phone, the voice data is being sent over data lines that are possibly leased by one company, processed at a teleco center, most likely leased from yet another third party, on equipment owned or leased to the phone company the user has a contract with, and sent over lines owned or leased possibly by yet another third party, to the destination teleco center possibly owned or leased to yet another third party which on gear owned or leased to possibly yet another third party who is under contract by the other person/business which the call is being placed to... As for the US Mail, it is a "third party", in the by definition since it is not the sender or receiver of the document/letter/package.
But, we clearly have stated that those situations have the expected right to privacy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30443314</id>
	<title>Re:why is this even in question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260888780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My employer needs to not cry about what it finds when it snoops on a device that it's allowed me to use for personal use... unless it divulges that I'm doing something that could get me fired (something illegal/against company policy)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...   talking dirty where nobody can hear you without diliberate snooping is not against company policy anywhere that I know of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My employer needs to not cry about what it finds when it snoops on a device that it 's allowed me to use for personal use... unless it divulges that I 'm doing something that could get me fired ( something illegal/against company policy ) ... talking dirty where nobody can hear you without diliberate snooping is not against company policy anywhere that I know of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My employer needs to not cry about what it finds when it snoops on a device that it's allowed me to use for personal use... unless it divulges that I'm doing something that could get me fired (something illegal/against company policy) ...   talking dirty where nobody can hear you without diliberate snooping is not against company policy anywhere that I know of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30441538</id>
	<title>Re:why is this even in question?</title>
	<author>mooglez</author>
	<datestamp>1260868920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> if your employer owns a device, and allows you to use it, you are not to <b>ever</b> use it for personal reasons, nor should you ever expect even the slightest amount of privacy for communications using the device. Even (and probably especially) if they give you permission for personal use. That goes for cell phones, pagers, computers, slide rules, everything. That means you do not log into personal Facebook, Google, or Hotmail at work. You do not use the company phone to call home. If you do any of these, you've 1) probably violated the terms of your employment and 2) have given the company/government permission to peer into all personal communications made with your employer's equipment.</p><p>You have explicit rights (in most cases) to privacy and use of the property that you actually own. That's it, the line is drawn there. I can't believe there is any controversy over this.</p></div><p>After reading this, I'm damn glad that i'm living and employed in Finland and not in USA.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if your employer owns a device , and allows you to use it , you are not to ever use it for personal reasons , nor should you ever expect even the slightest amount of privacy for communications using the device .
Even ( and probably especially ) if they give you permission for personal use .
That goes for cell phones , pagers , computers , slide rules , everything .
That means you do not log into personal Facebook , Google , or Hotmail at work .
You do not use the company phone to call home .
If you do any of these , you 've 1 ) probably violated the terms of your employment and 2 ) have given the company/government permission to peer into all personal communications made with your employer 's equipment.You have explicit rights ( in most cases ) to privacy and use of the property that you actually own .
That 's it , the line is drawn there .
I ca n't believe there is any controversy over this.After reading this , I 'm damn glad that i 'm living and employed in Finland and not in USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> if your employer owns a device, and allows you to use it, you are not to ever use it for personal reasons, nor should you ever expect even the slightest amount of privacy for communications using the device.
Even (and probably especially) if they give you permission for personal use.
That goes for cell phones, pagers, computers, slide rules, everything.
That means you do not log into personal Facebook, Google, or Hotmail at work.
You do not use the company phone to call home.
If you do any of these, you've 1) probably violated the terms of your employment and 2) have given the company/government permission to peer into all personal communications made with your employer's equipment.You have explicit rights (in most cases) to privacy and use of the property that you actually own.
That's it, the line is drawn there.
I can't believe there is any controversy over this.After reading this, I'm damn glad that i'm living and employed in Finland and not in USA.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438324</id>
	<title>Re:why is this even in question?</title>
	<author>jschottm</author>
	<datestamp>1260798600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the fact that they were using the phrase "grey area" astounded me.</i></p><p>The reason it's a grey area is that technology has advanced far faster than the laws that regulate it.</p><p><i>Look, it's simple: if your employer owns a device, and allows you to use it, you are not to ever use it for personal reasons, nor should you ever expect even the slightest amount of privacy for communications using the device. Even (and probably especially) if they give you permission for personal use. That goes for cell phones, pagers, computers, slide rules, everything. That means you do not log into personal Facebook, Google, or Hotmail at work. You do not use the company phone to call home. If you do any of these, you've 1) probably violated the terms of your employment and 2) have given the company/government permission to peer into all personal communications made with your employer's equipment.</i></p><p>Do you have any legal reason for these claims or are you just pontificating?  In the case of the former, you're absolutely wrong (my terms of employment specify reasonable personal use of the telephone and computers for everyone from the janitor to the president). If you're just spouting off, the good news for the rest of us is that most people don't like to have an obnoxious absolutist relationship with their employer and so laws are unlikely to ever line up with your views.  Just guessing, you don't have kids, do you?</p><p><i>You have explicit rights (in most cases) to privacy and use of the property that you actually own. That's it, the line is drawn there.</i></p><p>A person in jail talking with their lawyer via telephone (whether closed circuit in person or to the lawyer's office) doesn't own the communications device or have property rights to the room they're in yet their conversion is and must be considered protected. As would a private conversation between a husband and wife, even if they happen to have borrowed my car and are driving while conversing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the fact that they were using the phrase " grey area " astounded me.The reason it 's a grey area is that technology has advanced far faster than the laws that regulate it.Look , it 's simple : if your employer owns a device , and allows you to use it , you are not to ever use it for personal reasons , nor should you ever expect even the slightest amount of privacy for communications using the device .
Even ( and probably especially ) if they give you permission for personal use .
That goes for cell phones , pagers , computers , slide rules , everything .
That means you do not log into personal Facebook , Google , or Hotmail at work .
You do not use the company phone to call home .
If you do any of these , you 've 1 ) probably violated the terms of your employment and 2 ) have given the company/government permission to peer into all personal communications made with your employer 's equipment.Do you have any legal reason for these claims or are you just pontificating ?
In the case of the former , you 're absolutely wrong ( my terms of employment specify reasonable personal use of the telephone and computers for everyone from the janitor to the president ) .
If you 're just spouting off , the good news for the rest of us is that most people do n't like to have an obnoxious absolutist relationship with their employer and so laws are unlikely to ever line up with your views .
Just guessing , you do n't have kids , do you ? You have explicit rights ( in most cases ) to privacy and use of the property that you actually own .
That 's it , the line is drawn there.A person in jail talking with their lawyer via telephone ( whether closed circuit in person or to the lawyer 's office ) does n't own the communications device or have property rights to the room they 're in yet their conversion is and must be considered protected .
As would a private conversation between a husband and wife , even if they happen to have borrowed my car and are driving while conversing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the fact that they were using the phrase "grey area" astounded me.The reason it's a grey area is that technology has advanced far faster than the laws that regulate it.Look, it's simple: if your employer owns a device, and allows you to use it, you are not to ever use it for personal reasons, nor should you ever expect even the slightest amount of privacy for communications using the device.
Even (and probably especially) if they give you permission for personal use.
That goes for cell phones, pagers, computers, slide rules, everything.
That means you do not log into personal Facebook, Google, or Hotmail at work.
You do not use the company phone to call home.
If you do any of these, you've 1) probably violated the terms of your employment and 2) have given the company/government permission to peer into all personal communications made with your employer's equipment.Do you have any legal reason for these claims or are you just pontificating?
In the case of the former, you're absolutely wrong (my terms of employment specify reasonable personal use of the telephone and computers for everyone from the janitor to the president).
If you're just spouting off, the good news for the rest of us is that most people don't like to have an obnoxious absolutist relationship with their employer and so laws are unlikely to ever line up with your views.
Just guessing, you don't have kids, do you?You have explicit rights (in most cases) to privacy and use of the property that you actually own.
That's it, the line is drawn there.A person in jail talking with their lawyer via telephone (whether closed circuit in person or to the lawyer's office) doesn't own the communications device or have property rights to the room they're in yet their conversion is and must be considered protected.
As would a private conversation between a husband and wife, even if they happen to have borrowed my car and are driving while conversing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30442864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30441388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30442010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30439240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30444858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30444586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437220
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30442874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30447854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30439816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30444006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30443314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30445434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30440534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30443204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30439756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30440676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30440330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30443510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30444928
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30443154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30471234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30441538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_14_2141215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30440326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2141215.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437220
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30444586
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2141215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438114
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437156
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30441388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2141215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30440534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30442010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30444928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30444858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2141215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30447854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30444006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30440326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30442874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30443314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30440676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30443154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30443510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30439756
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30440330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30441538
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2141215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2141215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438378
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2141215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30445434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2141215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2141215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30439240
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30471234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2141215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30442864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30443204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_14_2141215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30436946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30437438
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438970
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30439816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_14_2141215.30438106
</commentlist>
</conversation>
