<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_17_2118216</id>
	<title>EPIC Files FTC Complaint Over Facebook's New Privacy Policy</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1261042800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) today <a href="http://epic.org/2009/12/epic-defends-privacy-of-facebo.html">filed a complaint</a> with the Federal Trade Commission, asking the agency to <a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/privacy-group-files-complaint-on-facebook-privacy-changes/">investigate the recent changes made by Facebook to the privacy settings</a> of Facebook users.  The complaint discusses the sharing of user information with third-party developers and the new, widely-opposed 'Everyone' setting, which allows certain user information, such as name, profile picture, and friends lists, to be publicly available. EPIC also urges the FTC to compel Facebook to restore privacy safeguards. The complaint was signed by nine privacy and consumer organizations."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " The Electronic Privacy Information Center ( EPIC ) today filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission , asking the agency to investigate the recent changes made by Facebook to the privacy settings of Facebook users .
The complaint discusses the sharing of user information with third-party developers and the new , widely-opposed 'Everyone ' setting , which allows certain user information , such as name , profile picture , and friends lists , to be publicly available .
EPIC also urges the FTC to compel Facebook to restore privacy safeguards .
The complaint was signed by nine privacy and consumer organizations .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) today filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, asking the agency to investigate the recent changes made by Facebook to the privacy settings of Facebook users.
The complaint discusses the sharing of user information with third-party developers and the new, widely-opposed 'Everyone' setting, which allows certain user information, such as name, profile picture, and friends lists, to be publicly available.
EPIC also urges the FTC to compel Facebook to restore privacy safeguards.
The complaint was signed by nine privacy and consumer organizations.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30483854</id>
	<title>Re:Decisions, decisions.</title>
	<author>aronschatz</author>
	<datestamp>1261074000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know this is off topic, but why would you want to opt out of sex?</p><p>Ohh, this IS Slashdot...</p><p>(Laugh, it's a joke)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this is off topic , but why would you want to opt out of sex ? Ohh , this IS Slashdot... ( Laugh , it 's a joke )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this is off topic, but why would you want to opt out of sex?Ohh, this IS Slashdot...(Laugh, it's a joke)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479908</id>
	<title>Re:Decisions, decisions.</title>
	<author>zorg50</author>
	<datestamp>1261047420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's see, we can either sue somebody, or use the helpful selection screen to change our privacy settings back to the way they were.</p> </div><p>Facebook has removed the ability for users to opt out of publicly sharing certain information, including their profile photo, networks, and sex.  I have every privacy setting set to "Friends Only" or "Friends of Friends," but those things are still publicly viewable in my profile.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see , we can either sue somebody , or use the helpful selection screen to change our privacy settings back to the way they were .
Facebook has removed the ability for users to opt out of publicly sharing certain information , including their profile photo , networks , and sex .
I have every privacy setting set to " Friends Only " or " Friends of Friends , " but those things are still publicly viewable in my profile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see, we can either sue somebody, or use the helpful selection screen to change our privacy settings back to the way they were.
Facebook has removed the ability for users to opt out of publicly sharing certain information, including their profile photo, networks, and sex.
I have every privacy setting set to "Friends Only" or "Friends of Friends," but those things are still publicly viewable in my profile.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479826</id>
	<title>their page</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261047000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Feel free to confirm their fears by visiting their facebook page</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Feel free to confirm their fears by visiting their facebook page</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feel free to confirm their fears by visiting their facebook page</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480248</id>
	<title>Re:What is the deal?</title>
	<author>dubbreak</author>
	<datestamp>1261048860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well I don't see how it's any of your business...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well I do n't see how it 's any of your business.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well I don't see how it's any of your business...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480182</id>
	<title>Re:What is the deal?</title>
	<author>meowhous</author>
	<datestamp>1261048620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>People are trying to avoid being stalked by ex-SOs or ex-employees, etc.

(Ha ha!  Diedrich will never find me here!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>People are trying to avoid being stalked by ex-SOs or ex-employees , etc .
( Ha ha !
Diedrich will never find me here !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People are trying to avoid being stalked by ex-SOs or ex-employees, etc.
(Ha ha!
Diedrich will never find me here!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480372</id>
	<title>Epic???</title>
	<author>Cruciform</author>
	<datestamp>1261049340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Headshot!</p><p>M-m-m-m-Monster Kill!</p><p>Oh, not that Epic. I feel so embarrassed. Does anyone else know how to get blood out of your Facebook profile?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Headshot ! M-m-m-m-Monster Kill ! Oh , not that Epic .
I feel so embarrassed .
Does anyone else know how to get blood out of your Facebook profile ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Headshot!M-m-m-m-Monster Kill!Oh, not that Epic.
I feel so embarrassed.
Does anyone else know how to get blood out of your Facebook profile?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480172</id>
	<title>Why the FTC?</title>
	<author>quangdog</author>
	<datestamp>1261048560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I fully admit I'm pretty uninformed on this stuff - but why the FTC?  What can they do about it?  What control or influence do they have over what a private business does with their member's website?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fully admit I 'm pretty uninformed on this stuff - but why the FTC ?
What can they do about it ?
What control or influence do they have over what a private business does with their member 's website ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fully admit I'm pretty uninformed on this stuff - but why the FTC?
What can they do about it?
What control or influence do they have over what a private business does with their member's website?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479890</id>
	<title>This is my problem with the privacy kooks</title>
	<author>NaCh0</author>
	<datestamp>1261047300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't like it, don't use it.</p><p>Your stupid faux outrage over you posting your own pics on an internet site designed to share pics.</p><p>Just STFU. "Civil libertarians" are fucktards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't like it , do n't use it.Your stupid faux outrage over you posting your own pics on an internet site designed to share pics.Just STFU .
" Civil libertarians " are fucktards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't like it, don't use it.Your stupid faux outrage over you posting your own pics on an internet site designed to share pics.Just STFU.
"Civil libertarians" are fucktards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30483020</id>
	<title>Re:Formal review of changes would benefit everyone</title>
	<author>Digypro</author>
	<datestamp>1261065540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think that expecting users to flee a service following troublesome changes is unrealistic.</p></div><p>I disagree, think of Friendster, or even Myspace...the social networking crowd can be fickle, if facebook screws up that leaves a market opening for a competitor (ie. Google, Microsoft etc)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that expecting users to flee a service following troublesome changes is unrealistic.I disagree , think of Friendster , or even Myspace...the social networking crowd can be fickle , if facebook screws up that leaves a market opening for a competitor ( ie .
Google , Microsoft etc )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that expecting users to flee a service following troublesome changes is unrealistic.I disagree, think of Friendster, or even Myspace...the social networking crowd can be fickle, if facebook screws up that leaves a market opening for a competitor (ie.
Google, Microsoft etc)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479834</id>
	<title>aw man!</title>
	<author>shadowrat</author>
	<datestamp>1261047060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>i was going to release my site, ssnbook.com, where users could enter and exchange thier social security numbers. Now i'm worried someone to will file a complaint with the FTC against me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>i was going to release my site , ssnbook.com , where users could enter and exchange thier social security numbers .
Now i 'm worried someone to will file a complaint with the FTC against me : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i was going to release my site, ssnbook.com, where users could enter and exchange thier social security numbers.
Now i'm worried someone to will file a complaint with the FTC against me :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480464</id>
	<title>Re:Decisions, decisions.</title>
	<author>aztektum</author>
	<datestamp>1261049700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can go in and set almost anything to what groups of people you want. All my photo albums are set to friends &amp; networks. If I log out and goto my www.facebook.com/mynamehere address, my photo doesn't show up. Nothing shows up.</p><p>Sounds like people don't know how to actually use the new privacy settings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can go in and set almost anything to what groups of people you want .
All my photo albums are set to friends &amp; networks .
If I log out and goto my www.facebook.com/mynamehere address , my photo does n't show up .
Nothing shows up.Sounds like people do n't know how to actually use the new privacy settings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can go in and set almost anything to what groups of people you want.
All my photo albums are set to friends &amp; networks.
If I log out and goto my www.facebook.com/mynamehere address, my photo doesn't show up.
Nothing shows up.Sounds like people don't know how to actually use the new privacy settings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30483458</id>
	<title>Re:Decisions, decisions.</title>
	<author>mixmastabinder</author>
	<datestamp>1261069800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually there still is an opt-out.  It's called not having an account.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually there still is an opt-out .
It 's called not having an account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually there still is an opt-out.
It's called not having an account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479908</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479978</id>
	<title>What is the deal?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261047720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What are these people trying to hide the fact that they're friends with Hitler or something?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are these people trying to hide the fact that they 're friends with Hitler or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are these people trying to hide the fact that they're friends with Hitler or something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480058</id>
	<title>Practice what you do not preach ?</title>
	<author>bibekpaudel</author>
	<datestamp>1261048080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lets be honest. How many more advertisement, apps, data mining opportunities would Facebook earn by making its privacy options really ensure privacy? Facebook would be out of business that way. But what is ridiculous is the owner of the company writing an open letter (with apology) stating that he will work to ensure greater privacy, while disabling even the existing measures that controlled several information (esp activity) of users. This is outright dishonesty and needs to be challenged. I prefer the honesty of some other companies that don't falsely claim to be respective of user's freedom and privacy rather than those whose rhetoric is high on values and action reminds of thugs. If they have to sell products with the aid of values, they'd better choose more 'practical' values. Practice what you do not preach ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets be honest .
How many more advertisement , apps , data mining opportunities would Facebook earn by making its privacy options really ensure privacy ?
Facebook would be out of business that way .
But what is ridiculous is the owner of the company writing an open letter ( with apology ) stating that he will work to ensure greater privacy , while disabling even the existing measures that controlled several information ( esp activity ) of users .
This is outright dishonesty and needs to be challenged .
I prefer the honesty of some other companies that do n't falsely claim to be respective of user 's freedom and privacy rather than those whose rhetoric is high on values and action reminds of thugs .
If they have to sell products with the aid of values , they 'd better choose more 'practical ' values .
Practice what you do not preach ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets be honest.
How many more advertisement, apps, data mining opportunities would Facebook earn by making its privacy options really ensure privacy?
Facebook would be out of business that way.
But what is ridiculous is the owner of the company writing an open letter (with apology) stating that he will work to ensure greater privacy, while disabling even the existing measures that controlled several information (esp activity) of users.
This is outright dishonesty and needs to be challenged.
I prefer the honesty of some other companies that don't falsely claim to be respective of user's freedom and privacy rather than those whose rhetoric is high on values and action reminds of thugs.
If they have to sell products with the aid of values, they'd better choose more 'practical' values.
Practice what you do not preach ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480220</id>
	<title>EPIC FILE!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261048800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>EPIC FILE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EPIC FILE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EPIC FILE!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30482834</id>
	<title>Re:Why the FTC?</title>
	<author>Mr. Slippery</author>
	<datestamp>1261064040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>but why the FTC? What can they do about it? What control or influence do they have over what a private business does with their member's website?</p></div></blockquote><p>What do you mean, "what control or influence do they have"? They're an arm of the federal government, which has lots of guns. They even have a Constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, so it's nice and legal for them to point their guns around.

</p><p>This is exactly what the Federal Trade Commission exists for: consumer protection.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but why the FTC ?
What can they do about it ?
What control or influence do they have over what a private business does with their member 's website ? What do you mean , " what control or influence do they have " ?
They 're an arm of the federal government , which has lots of guns .
They even have a Constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce , so it 's nice and legal for them to point their guns around .
This is exactly what the Federal Trade Commission exists for : consumer protection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but why the FTC?
What can they do about it?
What control or influence do they have over what a private business does with their member's website?What do you mean, "what control or influence do they have"?
They're an arm of the federal government, which has lots of guns.
They even have a Constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, so it's nice and legal for them to point their guns around.
This is exactly what the Federal Trade Commission exists for: consumer protection.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30481910</id>
	<title>The problem with acronyms</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1261057680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the FTC doesn't respond to their complaint, will this be reported in the press as an "EPIC Fail"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the FTC does n't respond to their complaint , will this be reported in the press as an " EPIC Fail " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the FTC doesn't respond to their complaint, will this be reported in the press as an "EPIC Fail"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480230</id>
	<title>Re:What is the deal?</title>
	<author>Nightspirit</author>
	<datestamp>1261048800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There have been numerous reports of people being fired for relatively innocuous facebook pictures which didn't really have much to do with their work. One particular case had a Quebec woman lose her disability insurance for depression, because she had a facebook picture of her going to the beach. These may be an exception, but it demonstrates how an employer or the government can get into your private life in a way that wasn't previously possible.</p><p>I have a facebook profile but I rarely post and when I do I make sure it is information that could never harm me in any way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There have been numerous reports of people being fired for relatively innocuous facebook pictures which did n't really have much to do with their work .
One particular case had a Quebec woman lose her disability insurance for depression , because she had a facebook picture of her going to the beach .
These may be an exception , but it demonstrates how an employer or the government can get into your private life in a way that was n't previously possible.I have a facebook profile but I rarely post and when I do I make sure it is information that could never harm me in any way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There have been numerous reports of people being fired for relatively innocuous facebook pictures which didn't really have much to do with their work.
One particular case had a Quebec woman lose her disability insurance for depression, because she had a facebook picture of her going to the beach.
These may be an exception, but it demonstrates how an employer or the government can get into your private life in a way that wasn't previously possible.I have a facebook profile but I rarely post and when I do I make sure it is information that could never harm me in any way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480020</id>
	<title>"EPIC Fails?"</title>
	<author>chipster</author>
	<datestamp>1261047840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>^EOF</htmltext>
<tokenext>^ EOF</tokentext>
<sentencetext>^EOF</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30482674</id>
	<title>Re:Decisions, decisions.</title>
	<author>digitalchinky</author>
	<datestamp>1261062900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You CAN hide your friends list from non-friends. It's trivially simple. Go to your profile page, click on the pencil where your friends list is, then uncheck the box that says "Show friends list to everyone"</p><p>Ok, so it's ever so slightly obscure, but you can still do it. Profile picture, well, you can always delete it entirely, or upload something you don't care about - since your privacy settings were for friends and friends of friends, it makes no difference since they can still get access to all your pictures if you allow it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You CAN hide your friends list from non-friends .
It 's trivially simple .
Go to your profile page , click on the pencil where your friends list is , then uncheck the box that says " Show friends list to everyone " Ok , so it 's ever so slightly obscure , but you can still do it .
Profile picture , well , you can always delete it entirely , or upload something you do n't care about - since your privacy settings were for friends and friends of friends , it makes no difference since they can still get access to all your pictures if you allow it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You CAN hide your friends list from non-friends.
It's trivially simple.
Go to your profile page, click on the pencil where your friends list is, then uncheck the box that says "Show friends list to everyone"Ok, so it's ever so slightly obscure, but you can still do it.
Profile picture, well, you can always delete it entirely, or upload something you don't care about - since your privacy settings were for friends and friends of friends, it makes no difference since they can still get access to all your pictures if you allow it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479924</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30482496</id>
	<title>Re:Decisions, decisions.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261061580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Parent comment is objectively wrong.  It is not, however, a troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent comment is objectively wrong .
It is not , however , a troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent comment is objectively wrong.
It is not, however, a troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480464</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479728</id>
	<title>Facebook has never been private</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261046640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>They just maintain an illusion of privacy, that's all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They just maintain an illusion of privacy , that 's all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They just maintain an illusion of privacy, that's all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30482486</id>
	<title>Jurisdiction?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261061460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand why the FTC even has jurisdiction here.  Remember folks, Facebook is <b>FREE</b>.  That's right.  You don't pay to sign up.  True, they make money from advertising, but that doesn't constitute any kind of contractual relationship between Facebook and its users, implied or otherwise.  (This is quite distinct from sale of a product or service, in which case the acceptance of money carries all sorts of implied warranties.)  If you don't like their privacy policies, then don't use Facebook!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why the FTC even has jurisdiction here .
Remember folks , Facebook is FREE .
That 's right .
You do n't pay to sign up .
True , they make money from advertising , but that does n't constitute any kind of contractual relationship between Facebook and its users , implied or otherwise .
( This is quite distinct from sale of a product or service , in which case the acceptance of money carries all sorts of implied warranties .
) If you do n't like their privacy policies , then do n't use Facebook !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why the FTC even has jurisdiction here.
Remember folks, Facebook is FREE.
That's right.
You don't pay to sign up.
True, they make money from advertising, but that doesn't constitute any kind of contractual relationship between Facebook and its users, implied or otherwise.
(This is quite distinct from sale of a product or service, in which case the acceptance of money carries all sorts of implied warranties.
)  If you don't like their privacy policies, then don't use Facebook!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30482612</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook has never been private</title>
	<author>digitalchinky</author>
	<datestamp>1261062480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True enough but I think there is also a lot of needless hype going on. They tweaked a few previously protected settings so that they went from private to public, for this they should get a slap upside the head, but it's not like you can't hide it all again. You can still lock down your profile just as much as you ever could.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True enough but I think there is also a lot of needless hype going on .
They tweaked a few previously protected settings so that they went from private to public , for this they should get a slap upside the head , but it 's not like you ca n't hide it all again .
You can still lock down your profile just as much as you ever could .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True enough but I think there is also a lot of needless hype going on.
They tweaked a few previously protected settings so that they went from private to public, for this they should get a slap upside the head, but it's not like you can't hide it all again.
You can still lock down your profile just as much as you ever could.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479844</id>
	<title>Decisions, decisions.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261047060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's see, we can either sue somebody, or use the helpful selection screen to change our privacy settings back to the way they were. <br>
Lawsuit it is!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see , we can either sue somebody , or use the helpful selection screen to change our privacy settings back to the way they were .
Lawsuit it is !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see, we can either sue somebody, or use the helpful selection screen to change our privacy settings back to the way they were.
Lawsuit it is!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30482912</id>
	<title>Re:Target on their forehead.</title>
	<author>Scrameustache</author>
	<datestamp>1261064580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They opened a huge can of worms. Literally.</p></div><p>They <a href="http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-literally-and-figuratively.htm" title="wisegeek.com">literally</a> [wisegeek.com] opened a metal container filled with annelids?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They opened a huge can of worms .
Literally.They literally [ wisegeek.com ] opened a metal container filled with annelids ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They opened a huge can of worms.
Literally.They literally [wisegeek.com] opened a metal container filled with annelids?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480572</id>
	<title>Leg to stand on?</title>
	<author>pedrop357</author>
	<datestamp>1261050180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If users don't like certain privacy policies, they can restore their privacy by leaving the privately owned site whose policy(ies) they disagree with.</p><p>Can someone sue because facebook allows photos to be right-clicked and saved?  What if they started with some flash based photo system that didn't allow "easy" saving and later transitioned to one that did?  Would that warrant a complaint to the FTC?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If users do n't like certain privacy policies , they can restore their privacy by leaving the privately owned site whose policy ( ies ) they disagree with.Can someone sue because facebook allows photos to be right-clicked and saved ?
What if they started with some flash based photo system that did n't allow " easy " saving and later transitioned to one that did ?
Would that warrant a complaint to the FTC ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If users don't like certain privacy policies, they can restore their privacy by leaving the privately owned site whose policy(ies) they disagree with.Can someone sue because facebook allows photos to be right-clicked and saved?
What if they started with some flash based photo system that didn't allow "easy" saving and later transitioned to one that did?
Would that warrant a complaint to the FTC?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479924</id>
	<title>Re:Decisions, decisions.</title>
	<author>El Gigante de Justic</author>
	<datestamp>1261047540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point is that you CAN'T change your privacy settings back to how they were.<br>For example, you can no longer have your Profile Pic show up for friends only, and you can't hide your friends list from non-friends anymore either, along with a few other items on the profile page.</p><p>Adding new privacy settings is good - eliminating existing privacy features is not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point is that you CA N'T change your privacy settings back to how they were.For example , you can no longer have your Profile Pic show up for friends only , and you ca n't hide your friends list from non-friends anymore either , along with a few other items on the profile page.Adding new privacy settings is good - eliminating existing privacy features is not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point is that you CAN'T change your privacy settings back to how they were.For example, you can no longer have your Profile Pic show up for friends only, and you can't hide your friends list from non-friends anymore either, along with a few other items on the profile page.Adding new privacy settings is good - eliminating existing privacy features is not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479844</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479938</id>
	<title>Re:Prediction</title>
	<author>medv4380</author>
	<datestamp>1261047600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>True, but arnt all social networking sites about exposing your privacy online anyway?</htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but arnt all social networking sites about exposing your privacy online anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but arnt all social networking sites about exposing your privacy online anyway?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479726</id>
	<title>Oh teh Noes!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261046580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My privacies are slipping away!  Paedophiles and murderers will now know where I live! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, SOMEBODY STOP THEM</htmltext>
<tokenext>My privacies are slipping away !
Paedophiles and murderers will now know where I live !
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD , SOMEBODY STOP THEM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My privacies are slipping away!
Paedophiles and murderers will now know where I live!
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, SOMEBODY STOP THEM</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479792</id>
	<title>Prediction</title>
	<author>whisper\_jeff</author>
	<datestamp>1261046820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Prediction: In response to these new privacy concerns, Facebook will change their privacy policy, tightening up security over the information people are concerned about. At the same time, they will loosen security over other information, starting a new wave of complaints.<br> <br>
Let's be real - this is, what, the fourth or fifth time this sort of thing has happened and every time it does, Facebook changes their policy by tightening "here" while loosening "there". This will be no different.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Prediction : In response to these new privacy concerns , Facebook will change their privacy policy , tightening up security over the information people are concerned about .
At the same time , they will loosen security over other information , starting a new wave of complaints .
Let 's be real - this is , what , the fourth or fifth time this sort of thing has happened and every time it does , Facebook changes their policy by tightening " here " while loosening " there " .
This will be no different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prediction: In response to these new privacy concerns, Facebook will change their privacy policy, tightening up security over the information people are concerned about.
At the same time, they will loosen security over other information, starting a new wave of complaints.
Let's be real - this is, what, the fourth or fifth time this sort of thing has happened and every time it does, Facebook changes their policy by tightening "here" while loosening "there".
This will be no different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480264</id>
	<title>I think this is an improvement</title>
	<author>magloca</author>
	<datestamp>1261048920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever since I, somewhat reluctantly, started using Facebook, I have followed the simple policy of making everything I post as public as possible, while simply not posting anything I don't want any random web surfer to see. If this change will make more people snap out of their false sense of Facebook privacy, all the better, I say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever since I , somewhat reluctantly , started using Facebook , I have followed the simple policy of making everything I post as public as possible , while simply not posting anything I do n't want any random web surfer to see .
If this change will make more people snap out of their false sense of Facebook privacy , all the better , I say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever since I, somewhat reluctantly, started using Facebook, I have followed the simple policy of making everything I post as public as possible, while simply not posting anything I don't want any random web surfer to see.
If this change will make more people snap out of their false sense of Facebook privacy, all the better, I say.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480642</id>
	<title>Re:Prediction</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1261050480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really. If you do post something as everything it has a popup telling you very clearly that it will be visible to the entire internet. The people complaining about it here are just idiots poking their nose where it isnt needed/wanted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
If you do post something as everything it has a popup telling you very clearly that it will be visible to the entire internet .
The people complaining about it here are just idiots poking their nose where it isnt needed/wanted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
If you do post something as everything it has a popup telling you very clearly that it will be visible to the entire internet.
The people complaining about it here are just idiots poking their nose where it isnt needed/wanted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479792</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480954</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261052280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, as Facebook (and other"social networking sites) are thinly disguised data mining sites, why would anyone that uses such sites ever have had any expectation of privacy?  The dats is sold to anyone who wants to pay for it as soon as it is entered on the site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , as Facebook ( and other " social networking sites ) are thinly disguised data mining sites , why would anyone that uses such sites ever have had any expectation of privacy ?
The dats is sold to anyone who wants to pay for it as soon as it is entered on the site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, as Facebook (and other"social networking sites) are thinly disguised data mining sites, why would anyone that uses such sites ever have had any expectation of privacy?
The dats is sold to anyone who wants to pay for it as soon as it is entered on the site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30485108</id>
	<title>Key issue is a public Friends list</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261135200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've pored through the new Facebook privacy settings.  My main objection is that I can't leave my name/face indexable on Google and to Everyone, without leaving my list of friends also visible to Google/Everyone.  I don't mind if Facebook Inc or my Friends or even Friends-of-Friends can see my whole social graph, but why the hell should that be totally totally public and indexable for all time for any viewer?  That just doesn't make any sense to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've pored through the new Facebook privacy settings .
My main objection is that I ca n't leave my name/face indexable on Google and to Everyone , without leaving my list of friends also visible to Google/Everyone .
I do n't mind if Facebook Inc or my Friends or even Friends-of-Friends can see my whole social graph , but why the hell should that be totally totally public and indexable for all time for any viewer ?
That just does n't make any sense to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've pored through the new Facebook privacy settings.
My main objection is that I can't leave my name/face indexable on Google and to Everyone, without leaving my list of friends also visible to Google/Everyone.
I don't mind if Facebook Inc or my Friends or even Friends-of-Friends can see my whole social graph, but why the hell should that be totally totally public and indexable for all time for any viewer?
That just doesn't make any sense to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480696</id>
	<title>Formal review of changes would benefit everyone</title>
	<author>valderost</author>
	<datestamp>1261050660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
On the whole, we're still in the middle of a huge transition in the ways we communicate with each other, and the degrees to which we trust third parties with information that rightfully belongs to us.  Facebook is no more accountable to its users than any other service; and no matter how much we might bitch and moan about changes in their privacy policies, the fact is that they are going to use our information in as many ways as they can to make money.  Sharing information directly with third parties is the most obvious, but there are plenty of indirect means.
</p><p>
Now that we can't hide ourselves, we're bound to attract more friends.  Every one of those relationships is a potential revenue stream, either directly or indirectly.  Folks at MIT recently demonstrated that they can determine to a high probability who on Facebook is gay without knowing anything about them except their friends.  I'm sure the same technique applies to religion, various types of hobbies, and a number of other things we don't always give as much thought to, like criminals, terrorists and the like.  These affiliations and attributes have to be a gold mine for someone, and the policy changes are a new mother lode.
</p><p>
I'm glad that EPIC, FTC, etc., are interested in our privacy, as they can exert pressure to change things in ways that we as users cannot.  What I'd really like to see out of all this might be some kind of formal privacy impact review before changes to social networking policies are made.  Any change that degrades privacy would need to be identified by third parties, justified or mitigated by the social network, then reviewed again until it's clear that users will be better off after the change than they were before.  I think that expecting users to flee a service following troublesome changes is unrealistic.  The users are caught between a rock and a hard place, and Facebook will continue twisting their arms as long as the users are paying more attention to their friends and apps than they are to their privacy.
</p><p>
It will be sad, yet very interesting at the same time, to see what happens when lost privacy demonstrably results in crimes of various sorts.  Facebook may find that its greed has a higher human price than it might ever have realized.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the whole , we 're still in the middle of a huge transition in the ways we communicate with each other , and the degrees to which we trust third parties with information that rightfully belongs to us .
Facebook is no more accountable to its users than any other service ; and no matter how much we might bitch and moan about changes in their privacy policies , the fact is that they are going to use our information in as many ways as they can to make money .
Sharing information directly with third parties is the most obvious , but there are plenty of indirect means .
Now that we ca n't hide ourselves , we 're bound to attract more friends .
Every one of those relationships is a potential revenue stream , either directly or indirectly .
Folks at MIT recently demonstrated that they can determine to a high probability who on Facebook is gay without knowing anything about them except their friends .
I 'm sure the same technique applies to religion , various types of hobbies , and a number of other things we do n't always give as much thought to , like criminals , terrorists and the like .
These affiliations and attributes have to be a gold mine for someone , and the policy changes are a new mother lode .
I 'm glad that EPIC , FTC , etc. , are interested in our privacy , as they can exert pressure to change things in ways that we as users can not .
What I 'd really like to see out of all this might be some kind of formal privacy impact review before changes to social networking policies are made .
Any change that degrades privacy would need to be identified by third parties , justified or mitigated by the social network , then reviewed again until it 's clear that users will be better off after the change than they were before .
I think that expecting users to flee a service following troublesome changes is unrealistic .
The users are caught between a rock and a hard place , and Facebook will continue twisting their arms as long as the users are paying more attention to their friends and apps than they are to their privacy .
It will be sad , yet very interesting at the same time , to see what happens when lost privacy demonstrably results in crimes of various sorts .
Facebook may find that its greed has a higher human price than it might ever have realized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
On the whole, we're still in the middle of a huge transition in the ways we communicate with each other, and the degrees to which we trust third parties with information that rightfully belongs to us.
Facebook is no more accountable to its users than any other service; and no matter how much we might bitch and moan about changes in their privacy policies, the fact is that they are going to use our information in as many ways as they can to make money.
Sharing information directly with third parties is the most obvious, but there are plenty of indirect means.
Now that we can't hide ourselves, we're bound to attract more friends.
Every one of those relationships is a potential revenue stream, either directly or indirectly.
Folks at MIT recently demonstrated that they can determine to a high probability who on Facebook is gay without knowing anything about them except their friends.
I'm sure the same technique applies to religion, various types of hobbies, and a number of other things we don't always give as much thought to, like criminals, terrorists and the like.
These affiliations and attributes have to be a gold mine for someone, and the policy changes are a new mother lode.
I'm glad that EPIC, FTC, etc., are interested in our privacy, as they can exert pressure to change things in ways that we as users cannot.
What I'd really like to see out of all this might be some kind of formal privacy impact review before changes to social networking policies are made.
Any change that degrades privacy would need to be identified by third parties, justified or mitigated by the social network, then reviewed again until it's clear that users will be better off after the change than they were before.
I think that expecting users to flee a service following troublesome changes is unrealistic.
The users are caught between a rock and a hard place, and Facebook will continue twisting their arms as long as the users are paying more attention to their friends and apps than they are to their privacy.
It will be sad, yet very interesting at the same time, to see what happens when lost privacy demonstrably results in crimes of various sorts.
Facebook may find that its greed has a higher human price than it might ever have realized.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479794</id>
	<title>Pun-ters</title>
	<author>iamapizza</author>
	<datestamp>1261046820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you think they're doing it just because it sounds like Epic Fail?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you think they 're doing it just because it sounds like Epic Fail ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you think they're doing it just because it sounds like Epic Fail?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480476</id>
	<title>Target on their forehead.</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1261049700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only dumb move, and I mean really dumb move, is that facebook didn't default all privacy settings to "no one" upon adding their new feature. Users need to opt in to things like this, not be forced to opt out. They opened a huge can of worms. Literally.</p><p>Am I the only one who thinks the new facebook is buggy as hell?</p><p><b>AJAX + unresponsive backend = awkward moment</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only dumb move , and I mean really dumb move , is that facebook did n't default all privacy settings to " no one " upon adding their new feature .
Users need to opt in to things like this , not be forced to opt out .
They opened a huge can of worms .
Literally.Am I the only one who thinks the new facebook is buggy as hell ? AJAX + unresponsive backend = awkward moment</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only dumb move, and I mean really dumb move, is that facebook didn't default all privacy settings to "no one" upon adding their new feature.
Users need to opt in to things like this, not be forced to opt out.
They opened a huge can of worms.
Literally.Am I the only one who thinks the new facebook is buggy as hell?AJAX + unresponsive backend = awkward moment</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30481894</id>
	<title>Re:I think this is an improvement</title>
	<author>GrumblyStuff</author>
	<datestamp>1261057560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>... I have followed the simple policy of making everything I post as public as possible<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote><p>Not good enough.  Consider the same policy as when talking with cops since everything you say/write/photograph will be timestamped and stored at a location you cannot get to.</p><p>Stuff you say in public, you can whisper.  You can have reasonable expectation that someone isn't right behind you, listening and recording the whole time.</p><p>And then, there's everyone else.  Even if your policy works better than what doom&amp;gloom I just typed, are your friends following similar policies?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... I have followed the simple policy of making everything I post as public as possible ...Not good enough .
Consider the same policy as when talking with cops since everything you say/write/photograph will be timestamped and stored at a location you can not get to.Stuff you say in public , you can whisper .
You can have reasonable expectation that someone is n't right behind you , listening and recording the whole time.And then , there 's everyone else .
Even if your policy works better than what doom&amp;gloom I just typed , are your friends following similar policies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I have followed the simple policy of making everything I post as public as possible ...Not good enough.
Consider the same policy as when talking with cops since everything you say/write/photograph will be timestamped and stored at a location you cannot get to.Stuff you say in public, you can whisper.
You can have reasonable expectation that someone isn't right behind you, listening and recording the whole time.And then, there's everyone else.
Even if your policy works better than what doom&amp;gloom I just typed, are your friends following similar policies?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480264</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2118216_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30482496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480464
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2118216_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2118216_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30481894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2118216_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2118216_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30482612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2118216_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2118216_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30483854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2118216_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30482912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2118216_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30483020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2118216_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2118216_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2118216_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30483458
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2118216_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30482834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_17_2118216_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30482674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2118216.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2118216.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30482612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2118216.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30482834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2118216.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30482486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2118216.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30483458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30483854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480464
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30482496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30482674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2118216.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2118216.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2118216.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2118216.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30482912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2118216.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30481894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2118216.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30483020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2118216.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30479938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_17_2118216.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_17_2118216.30480220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
