<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_21_1922215</id>
	<title>Malware and Botnet Operators Going ISP</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1261389180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Trailrunner7 writes to mention that malware and botnet operators appear to be escalating to the next level by <a href="http://threatpost.com/en\_us/blogs/attackers-buying-own-data-centers-botnets-spam-122109">setting up their own virtual data centers</a>.  This elevates the criminals to the ISP level, making it much harder to stop them.  <i>"The criminals will buy servers and place them in a large data center and then submit an application for a large block of IP space. In some cases, the applicants are asked for nothing more than a letter explaining why they need the IP space, security researchers say. No further investigation is done, and once the criminals have the IP space, they've taken a layer of potential problems out of the equation. 'It's gotten completely out of hand. The bad guys are going to some local registries in Europe and getting massive amounts of IP space and then they just go to a hosting provider and set up their own data centers,' said Alex Lanstein, senior security researcher at FireEye, an anti-malware and anti-botnet vendor. 'It takes one more level out of it: You own your own IP space and you're your own ISP at that point.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trailrunner7 writes to mention that malware and botnet operators appear to be escalating to the next level by setting up their own virtual data centers .
This elevates the criminals to the ISP level , making it much harder to stop them .
" The criminals will buy servers and place them in a large data center and then submit an application for a large block of IP space .
In some cases , the applicants are asked for nothing more than a letter explaining why they need the IP space , security researchers say .
No further investigation is done , and once the criminals have the IP space , they 've taken a layer of potential problems out of the equation .
'It 's gotten completely out of hand .
The bad guys are going to some local registries in Europe and getting massive amounts of IP space and then they just go to a hosting provider and set up their own data centers, ' said Alex Lanstein , senior security researcher at FireEye , an anti-malware and anti-botnet vendor .
'It takes one more level out of it : You own your own IP space and you 're your own ISP at that point .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trailrunner7 writes to mention that malware and botnet operators appear to be escalating to the next level by setting up their own virtual data centers.
This elevates the criminals to the ISP level, making it much harder to stop them.
"The criminals will buy servers and place them in a large data center and then submit an application for a large block of IP space.
In some cases, the applicants are asked for nothing more than a letter explaining why they need the IP space, security researchers say.
No further investigation is done, and once the criminals have the IP space, they've taken a layer of potential problems out of the equation.
'It's gotten completely out of hand.
The bad guys are going to some local registries in Europe and getting massive amounts of IP space and then they just go to a hosting provider and set up their own data centers,' said Alex Lanstein, senior security researcher at FireEye, an anti-malware and anti-botnet vendor.
'It takes one more level out of it: You own your own IP space and you're your own ISP at that point.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517746</id>
	<title>Old news</title>
	<author>jimpop</author>
	<datestamp>1261394940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is nothing new.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is nothing new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is nothing new.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517432</id>
	<title>DNA samples/Chips in fingertips?</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1261393200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>No further investigation is done</i></p><p>And none should be. They're a potential customer buying IP addresses and hosting, not automatic weapons.</p><p>Pretty soon we're gonna be so "secure" it's gonna take an act of congress take a piss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No further investigation is doneAnd none should be .
They 're a potential customer buying IP addresses and hosting , not automatic weapons.Pretty soon we 're gon na be so " secure " it 's gon na take an act of congress take a piss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No further investigation is doneAnd none should be.
They're a potential customer buying IP addresses and hosting, not automatic weapons.Pretty soon we're gonna be so "secure" it's gonna take an act of congress take a piss.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517942</id>
	<title>Re:Filtering easier?</title>
	<author>QuantumRiff</author>
	<datestamp>1261396200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is for the command and control servers, not for the spam spewers.. So the blocking would have to be done at the router level, not spam filter level..  And quite frankly, blocking all mail from X is alot less dangerous of a precedent than black hole routing X.  Really sucks if you knock those guys out of business, and someone else gets that IP space someday!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is for the command and control servers , not for the spam spewers.. So the blocking would have to be done at the router level , not spam filter level.. And quite frankly , blocking all mail from X is alot less dangerous of a precedent than black hole routing X. Really sucks if you knock those guys out of business , and someone else gets that IP space someday !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is for the command and control servers, not for the spam spewers.. So the blocking would have to be done at the router level, not spam filter level..  And quite frankly, blocking all mail from X is alot less dangerous of a precedent than black hole routing X.  Really sucks if you knock those guys out of business, and someone else gets that IP space someday!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518004</id>
	<title>Re:Easier to block?</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1261396680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
There is a strong movement on the public internet registries such as ARIN, RIR, etc, supporting <b>privacy</b> of IP address allocation data.
In the future, it is very likely that registry policy may shift in favor of these supporters of internet privacy.
</p><p>
The result will be you cannot do so much as a WHOIS lookup to find out who these spammers <b>might be</b> if the privacy advocates/spammer have their way, only with a court order...
</p><p>
Good luck getting that when the spammer lives in a different country, where spam isn't illegal.
</p><p>
No, because once every<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/24 in those f****ers block gets on enough blacklists, they get a few more hosts to justify a bigger block, fill out a form to <b>RETURN</b> the IP addresses they got. Their old IPs will be assigned to someone else,
and after the exchange their old IPs for a fresh new block of IPs they have even more<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/24s  than before, and none of them blocked.
</p><p>
Now only the new guy (that happens to be so unlucky as to get their old IPs) is blocked.
</p><p>
Of course the f'ers will pretend to be legitimate extremely well, and make it as hard as possible for people to see reason to ban their whole block..  (E.g. The "shell" ISP will create "fake" separation from spammers who "received space" from their block)
</p><p>
They may do all kinds of weird s**** to make it look like it's not just one spammer.
</p><p>
Alternatively, they just apply for more space, using more shell companies, lather, rinse, and repeat.  Until IPv4 <a href="http://www.inetcore.com/project/ipv4ec/index\_en.html" title="inetcore.com" rel="nofollow">is exhausted</a> [inetcore.com], that is.
</p><p>
If they have no problem lying once... it's not the least bit difficult to create 30 more fake companies  (or even, make them real companies -- if the spam effort is profitable enough).
</p><p>
This is all assuming they are getting the IPs from the RIRs in the first place, which I doubt is the most common..  that could be too easy to track, since these allocations generally get published very visibly.
</p><p>
LIR ips are just fine for them, and much easier to get.
</p><p>
Also, the RIRs are basically powerless to stop this.
Contrary to the article, it's not necessarily about "LIRs being lax".
</p><p>
Once a block of IP addresses is assigned, it is not as if the LIR or RIR can revoke it and force its use to cease.
</p><p>
Revoking IP addresses doesn't magically make them unreachable on the internet -- once the spammer convinced their ISP to announce the address space,  they don't need (any longer) to prove they got the IPs legitimately, until/unless they get more ISPs.
</p><p>
The article's terminology is wrong.  An LIR is just another name for an ISP.
Verizon is an LIR, Level3 is an LIR, Cogent is an LIR, AT&amp;T, Sprint, etc, are all LIRs, any ISP that receives ISP allocations of addresses which are issued to them <b>for the sole purpose of sub-delegating for use with their services</b>, is called an LIR.
</p><p>
Maybe the article means the spammers are getting IP delegations from an ISP LIR, that would make sense.   It is very easy to believe,  they could do this en masse with very little effort, in fact.
</p><p>
If you buy internet services from an ISP like Verizon, and claim to have X hosts,  they will have a very hard time rejecting a request from their customer for those IPs.
</p><p>
For a simple<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/24 or two, most won't ask for much documentation, as long as the price is right, it's not customer-friendly to try that.
</p><p>
The <b>tough</b> questions don't start getting asked, until a request for a larger number of IPs is made,  which is sensible.
Level of justification and documentation commensurate with the expected usage.
</p><p>
The LIR/ISP will SWIP the listing or list the claimed owner on their RWHOIS Servers, but it won't appear as public knowledge in the <a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/mailing\_lists/rss.html" title="arin.net" rel="nofollow">RSS feeds</a> [arin.net], that such and such<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/24  has been allocated.
</p><p>
ISP RWHOIS servers are commonly broken and poorly maintained -- the spammer's new subdelegation may not even become public knowledge.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a strong movement on the public internet registries such as ARIN , RIR , etc , supporting privacy of IP address allocation data .
In the future , it is very likely that registry policy may shift in favor of these supporters of internet privacy .
The result will be you can not do so much as a WHOIS lookup to find out who these spammers might be if the privacy advocates/spammer have their way , only with a court order.. . Good luck getting that when the spammer lives in a different country , where spam is n't illegal .
No , because once every /24 in those f * * * * ers block gets on enough blacklists , they get a few more hosts to justify a bigger block , fill out a form to RETURN the IP addresses they got .
Their old IPs will be assigned to someone else , and after the exchange their old IPs for a fresh new block of IPs they have even more /24s than before , and none of them blocked .
Now only the new guy ( that happens to be so unlucky as to get their old IPs ) is blocked .
Of course the f'ers will pretend to be legitimate extremely well , and make it as hard as possible for people to see reason to ban their whole block.. ( E.g. The " shell " ISP will create " fake " separation from spammers who " received space " from their block ) They may do all kinds of weird s * * * * to make it look like it 's not just one spammer .
Alternatively , they just apply for more space , using more shell companies , lather , rinse , and repeat .
Until IPv4 is exhausted [ inetcore.com ] , that is .
If they have no problem lying once... it 's not the least bit difficult to create 30 more fake companies ( or even , make them real companies -- if the spam effort is profitable enough ) .
This is all assuming they are getting the IPs from the RIRs in the first place , which I doubt is the most common.. that could be too easy to track , since these allocations generally get published very visibly .
LIR ips are just fine for them , and much easier to get .
Also , the RIRs are basically powerless to stop this .
Contrary to the article , it 's not necessarily about " LIRs being lax " .
Once a block of IP addresses is assigned , it is not as if the LIR or RIR can revoke it and force its use to cease .
Revoking IP addresses does n't magically make them unreachable on the internet -- once the spammer convinced their ISP to announce the address space , they do n't need ( any longer ) to prove they got the IPs legitimately , until/unless they get more ISPs .
The article 's terminology is wrong .
An LIR is just another name for an ISP .
Verizon is an LIR , Level3 is an LIR , Cogent is an LIR , AT&amp;T , Sprint , etc , are all LIRs , any ISP that receives ISP allocations of addresses which are issued to them for the sole purpose of sub-delegating for use with their services , is called an LIR .
Maybe the article means the spammers are getting IP delegations from an ISP LIR , that would make sense .
It is very easy to believe , they could do this en masse with very little effort , in fact .
If you buy internet services from an ISP like Verizon , and claim to have X hosts , they will have a very hard time rejecting a request from their customer for those IPs .
For a simple /24 or two , most wo n't ask for much documentation , as long as the price is right , it 's not customer-friendly to try that .
The tough questions do n't start getting asked , until a request for a larger number of IPs is made , which is sensible .
Level of justification and documentation commensurate with the expected usage .
The LIR/ISP will SWIP the listing or list the claimed owner on their RWHOIS Servers , but it wo n't appear as public knowledge in the RSS feeds [ arin.net ] , that such and such /24 has been allocated .
ISP RWHOIS servers are commonly broken and poorly maintained -- the spammer 's new subdelegation may not even become public knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
There is a strong movement on the public internet registries such as ARIN, RIR, etc, supporting privacy of IP address allocation data.
In the future, it is very likely that registry policy may shift in favor of these supporters of internet privacy.
The result will be you cannot do so much as a WHOIS lookup to find out who these spammers might be if the privacy advocates/spammer have their way, only with a court order...

Good luck getting that when the spammer lives in a different country, where spam isn't illegal.
No, because once every /24 in those f****ers block gets on enough blacklists, they get a few more hosts to justify a bigger block, fill out a form to RETURN the IP addresses they got.
Their old IPs will be assigned to someone else,
and after the exchange their old IPs for a fresh new block of IPs they have even more /24s  than before, and none of them blocked.
Now only the new guy (that happens to be so unlucky as to get their old IPs) is blocked.
Of course the f'ers will pretend to be legitimate extremely well, and make it as hard as possible for people to see reason to ban their whole block..  (E.g. The "shell" ISP will create "fake" separation from spammers who "received space" from their block)

They may do all kinds of weird s**** to make it look like it's not just one spammer.
Alternatively, they just apply for more space, using more shell companies, lather, rinse, and repeat.
Until IPv4 is exhausted [inetcore.com], that is.
If they have no problem lying once... it's not the least bit difficult to create 30 more fake companies  (or even, make them real companies -- if the spam effort is profitable enough).
This is all assuming they are getting the IPs from the RIRs in the first place, which I doubt is the most common..  that could be too easy to track, since these allocations generally get published very visibly.
LIR ips are just fine for them, and much easier to get.
Also, the RIRs are basically powerless to stop this.
Contrary to the article, it's not necessarily about "LIRs being lax".
Once a block of IP addresses is assigned, it is not as if the LIR or RIR can revoke it and force its use to cease.
Revoking IP addresses doesn't magically make them unreachable on the internet -- once the spammer convinced their ISP to announce the address space,  they don't need (any longer) to prove they got the IPs legitimately, until/unless they get more ISPs.
The article's terminology is wrong.
An LIR is just another name for an ISP.
Verizon is an LIR, Level3 is an LIR, Cogent is an LIR, AT&amp;T, Sprint, etc, are all LIRs, any ISP that receives ISP allocations of addresses which are issued to them for the sole purpose of sub-delegating for use with their services, is called an LIR.
Maybe the article means the spammers are getting IP delegations from an ISP LIR, that would make sense.
It is very easy to believe,  they could do this en masse with very little effort, in fact.
If you buy internet services from an ISP like Verizon, and claim to have X hosts,  they will have a very hard time rejecting a request from their customer for those IPs.
For a simple /24 or two, most won't ask for much documentation, as long as the price is right, it's not customer-friendly to try that.
The tough questions don't start getting asked, until a request for a larger number of IPs is made,  which is sensible.
Level of justification and documentation commensurate with the expected usage.
The LIR/ISP will SWIP the listing or list the claimed owner on their RWHOIS Servers, but it won't appear as public knowledge in the RSS feeds [arin.net], that such and such /24  has been allocated.
ISP RWHOIS servers are commonly broken and poorly maintained -- the spammer's new subdelegation may not even become public knowledge.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30521476</id>
	<title>This is true - specially in Romania for example.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261473360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I for one know that a big romanian ISP jump.ro is owned by a spammer who operates by spamming from a large number of class C netblocks. When ripe.net was contacted, they said the onus is on ISP but when ISP itself is spammer, whom should we report this to ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one know that a big romanian ISP jump.ro is owned by a spammer who operates by spamming from a large number of class C netblocks .
When ripe.net was contacted , they said the onus is on ISP but when ISP itself is spammer , whom should we report this to ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one know that a big romanian ISP jump.ro is owned by a spammer who operates by spamming from a large number of class C netblocks.
When ripe.net was contacted, they said the onus is on ISP but when ISP itself is spammer, whom should we report this to ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30530958</id>
	<title>Re:Easier to block?</title>
	<author>vaniderstine</author>
	<datestamp>1261485780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, your are incorrect on at least one point.  If your upstream ISP (or whatever you'd like to call it) stops advertising a route to your<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/24 (etc) and blocks your outbound traffic, then, you are effectivly off of the net.

This takes about 2 minutes for a single peering relationship.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , your are incorrect on at least one point .
If your upstream ISP ( or whatever you 'd like to call it ) stops advertising a route to your /24 ( etc ) and blocks your outbound traffic , then , you are effectivly off of the net .
This takes about 2 minutes for a single peering relationship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, your are incorrect on at least one point.
If your upstream ISP (or whatever you'd like to call it) stops advertising a route to your /24 (etc) and blocks your outbound traffic, then, you are effectivly off of the net.
This takes about 2 minutes for a single peering relationship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30522534</id>
	<title>Botnet control?</title>
	<author>hicksw</author>
	<datestamp>1261488420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like a good way to run a wide shallow botnet control tree.</p><p>And Big Crime^WBusiness could control a collection of these small ISPs just like a botnet.<br>--<br>Does the noise in my head bother you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a good way to run a wide shallow botnet control tree.And Big Crime ^ WBusiness could control a collection of these small ISPs just like a botnet.--Does the noise in my head bother you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a good way to run a wide shallow botnet control tree.And Big Crime^WBusiness could control a collection of these small ISPs just like a botnet.--Does the noise in my head bother you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518592</id>
	<title>What - No William Gibson?</title>
	<author>meerling</author>
	<datestamp>1261400700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come on, W.G. is one of the founders of the whole cyperpunk genre.<br>You can't honestly tell me that you've read Sterling and Stephenson and haven't read Gibson.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , W.G .
is one of the founders of the whole cyperpunk genre.You ca n't honestly tell me that you 've read Sterling and Stephenson and have n't read Gibson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, W.G.
is one of the founders of the whole cyperpunk genre.You can't honestly tell me that you've read Sterling and Stephenson and haven't read Gibson.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517492</id>
	<title>Re:DNA samples/Chips in fingertips?</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1261393440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, but the thing is IPv4 IP addresses are limited. Because of this, even if they started a botnet today and a year from now were gone, those range of IP addresses still might be blocked by various places. <br> <br>

I agree with your general feelings that you shouldn't need investigating to get a block of IP addresses, but it reduces a scares commodity and is in the best interests of those giving out blocks of IP addresses to check out the companies a bit more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , but the thing is IPv4 IP addresses are limited .
Because of this , even if they started a botnet today and a year from now were gone , those range of IP addresses still might be blocked by various places .
I agree with your general feelings that you should n't need investigating to get a block of IP addresses , but it reduces a scares commodity and is in the best interests of those giving out blocks of IP addresses to check out the companies a bit more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, but the thing is IPv4 IP addresses are limited.
Because of this, even if they started a botnet today and a year from now were gone, those range of IP addresses still might be blocked by various places.
I agree with your general feelings that you shouldn't need investigating to get a block of IP addresses, but it reduces a scares commodity and is in the best interests of those giving out blocks of IP addresses to check out the companies a bit more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517440</id>
	<title>Re:Easier to block?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261393200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Out of curiosity... does that make that IP space sort of permanently black-listed?  e.g., if the "bad guys" go out of business and "good guys" buy the IP space... how do the new owners clear the IP space of its bad name?</p><p>Seems like a shame to start throwing IP space away because there's no way to make it clean again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of curiosity... does that make that IP space sort of permanently black-listed ?
e.g. , if the " bad guys " go out of business and " good guys " buy the IP space... how do the new owners clear the IP space of its bad name ? Seems like a shame to start throwing IP space away because there 's no way to make it clean again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of curiosity... does that make that IP space sort of permanently black-listed?
e.g., if the "bad guys" go out of business and "good guys" buy the IP space... how do the new owners clear the IP space of its bad name?Seems like a shame to start throwing IP space away because there's no way to make it clean again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518672</id>
	<title>Re:Easier to block?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261401540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it doesn't.</p><p>We had a "customer" that had 15+ dedicated servers with us. This customer received tons of SPAM complaints. Each time they had a different excuse.</p><p>After I disabled the servers and refused to turn them back on without examining them. The "employee" said he wasn't supposed to give me the root passwords but after I said that they would stay down until I got them he reluctantly gave them to me. Upon cursory examination the systems seems clean as a whistle until I realized there were no services actually running. No mail, etc.</p><p>Where was the email coming from?</p><p>I then found that the customer had GRE tunnels configured. This allowed servers in other data-centers to generate and send the spam through our network without having anything of actual value hosted with us.</p><p>The "employee" that was our customer was so convincing that I could have believed that at least he thought his company was legitimate. He even tried to tell me that it was because they couldn't get IP addresses from their current provider they bought dedicated servers from us ($1500/mo) for IP space.</p><p>Obviously the customer was terminated as soon as I found the tunnels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it does n't.We had a " customer " that had 15 + dedicated servers with us .
This customer received tons of SPAM complaints .
Each time they had a different excuse.After I disabled the servers and refused to turn them back on without examining them .
The " employee " said he was n't supposed to give me the root passwords but after I said that they would stay down until I got them he reluctantly gave them to me .
Upon cursory examination the systems seems clean as a whistle until I realized there were no services actually running .
No mail , etc.Where was the email coming from ? I then found that the customer had GRE tunnels configured .
This allowed servers in other data-centers to generate and send the spam through our network without having anything of actual value hosted with us.The " employee " that was our customer was so convincing that I could have believed that at least he thought his company was legitimate .
He even tried to tell me that it was because they could n't get IP addresses from their current provider they bought dedicated servers from us ( $ 1500/mo ) for IP space.Obviously the customer was terminated as soon as I found the tunnels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it doesn't.We had a "customer" that had 15+ dedicated servers with us.
This customer received tons of SPAM complaints.
Each time they had a different excuse.After I disabled the servers and refused to turn them back on without examining them.
The "employee" said he wasn't supposed to give me the root passwords but after I said that they would stay down until I got them he reluctantly gave them to me.
Upon cursory examination the systems seems clean as a whistle until I realized there were no services actually running.
No mail, etc.Where was the email coming from?I then found that the customer had GRE tunnels configured.
This allowed servers in other data-centers to generate and send the spam through our network without having anything of actual value hosted with us.The "employee" that was our customer was so convincing that I could have believed that at least he thought his company was legitimate.
He even tried to tell me that it was because they couldn't get IP addresses from their current provider they bought dedicated servers from us ($1500/mo) for IP space.Obviously the customer was terminated as soon as I found the tunnels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30524896</id>
	<title>They aren't ISPs, they are OSPs</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1261503180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As such, they still connect to someone upstream, you blacklist their address space, ALL OF IT, and their ISP if they refuse to cooperate.</p><p>Rarely will the national ISPs take this sort of abuse, its rather easy for them to spot.  You get plenty of crappy little local data centers that will let them get by with it, and 999 times out of a 1000 you'll never hear anything about it.</p><p>I make about 2 attempts to stop a spammer that does this crap, 3 time I just blacklist the entire ISP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As such , they still connect to someone upstream , you blacklist their address space , ALL OF IT , and their ISP if they refuse to cooperate.Rarely will the national ISPs take this sort of abuse , its rather easy for them to spot .
You get plenty of crappy little local data centers that will let them get by with it , and 999 times out of a 1000 you 'll never hear anything about it.I make about 2 attempts to stop a spammer that does this crap , 3 time I just blacklist the entire ISP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As such, they still connect to someone upstream, you blacklist their address space, ALL OF IT, and their ISP if they refuse to cooperate.Rarely will the national ISPs take this sort of abuse, its rather easy for them to spot.
You get plenty of crappy little local data centers that will let them get by with it, and 999 times out of a 1000 you'll never hear anything about it.I make about 2 attempts to stop a spammer that does this crap, 3 time I just blacklist the entire ISP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517930</id>
	<title>youtubers beware</title>
	<author>cl191</author>
	<datestamp>1261396080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"You own your own IP space and you're your own ISP at that point."

I believe this sentence was designed to make youtube commenters' heads to explode......your you're you what?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" You own your own IP space and you 're your own ISP at that point .
" I believe this sentence was designed to make youtube commenters ' heads to explode......your you 're you what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You own your own IP space and you're your own ISP at that point.
"

I believe this sentence was designed to make youtube commenters' heads to explode......your you're you what?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518498</id>
	<title>Re:Easier to block?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261399980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Out of curiosity... does that make that IP space sort of permanently black-listed?  e.g., if the "bad guys" go out of business and "good guys" buy the IP space... how do the new owners clear the IP space of its bad name?</p><p>Seems like a shame to start throwing IP space away because there's no way to make it clean again.</p></div><p>At times, yes.</p><p>See <a href="http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg03084.html" title="merit.edu" rel="nofollow">this</a> [merit.edu] for a recent incident involving the Atrivo/RBN incident.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Out of curiosity... does that make that IP space sort of permanently black-listed ?
e.g. , if the " bad guys " go out of business and " good guys " buy the IP space... how do the new owners clear the IP space of its bad name ? Seems like a shame to start throwing IP space away because there 's no way to make it clean again.At times , yes.See this [ merit.edu ] for a recent incident involving the Atrivo/RBN incident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Out of curiosity... does that make that IP space sort of permanently black-listed?
e.g., if the "bad guys" go out of business and "good guys" buy the IP space... how do the new owners clear the IP space of its bad name?Seems like a shame to start throwing IP space away because there's no way to make it clean again.At times, yes.See this [merit.edu] for a recent incident involving the Atrivo/RBN incident.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519560</id>
	<title>Re:Hyperbole</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1261408860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the terminology is debatable. They're talking about the malware and botnet operators getting more organized and reselling their services as malware-friendly ISPs.</p><p>I work for a web hosting company, but the vast majority of our customers are resellers who simply rent a dedicated box with cPanel, toss up a web page, and presto, they're a web hosting company too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the terminology is debatable .
They 're talking about the malware and botnet operators getting more organized and reselling their services as malware-friendly ISPs.I work for a web hosting company , but the vast majority of our customers are resellers who simply rent a dedicated box with cPanel , toss up a web page , and presto , they 're a web hosting company too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the terminology is debatable.
They're talking about the malware and botnet operators getting more organized and reselling their services as malware-friendly ISPs.I work for a web hosting company, but the vast majority of our customers are resellers who simply rent a dedicated box with cPanel, toss up a web page, and presto, they're a web hosting company too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30520028</id>
	<title>Re:Filtering easier?</title>
	<author>fredklein</author>
	<datestamp>1261412760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or just use Email Certification.</p><p>Long story short, everyone who wants to send Certified mail has to be 'certified' by their ISP. (UN-certified mail would still be possible, if you wish.) Getting certified is nothing more than providing enough information to positively identify you, and costs a nominal fee.</p><p>In return, you create a public/private key pair, and give the public one to the certifier. The private key goes into your email server, which adds some headers to each outgoing email. One of these is encrypted with the private key.  When someone with a certification-compliant email program receives a certified email, the program reads the headers, connects to the certifer's certification server, and downloads the public key.  It then uses the public key to decrypt the encrypted header.  If successful, it proves that email came from the specified server, and no one else.</p><p>If you get spam, your email client has a big 'report certified spam' button. Click it, and an email is auto-launched to the certifier of the sender. The certifier contacts the sender and demands an explanation.  If sender was hacked, they fix the security hole and tell certifier they did so.  If spam was not spam, or a misunderstanding, they explain.</p><p>If, OTOH,  the sender does not reply, then the certifier revokes their certification, and from that moment on, all their (the 'sender's) emails are UN-certified.</p><p>What if a Certifier themselves is 'evil'? Well, it's certainly possible to have blacklists like they do now, but, instead of blacklisting IP addressed, which get re-assigned and cause trouble for their new owners, it would be evil Certifiers that get listed and blocked.</p><p>Eventually, it'll reach a point where any spam that is sent out will get the sender 'de-certified' almost immediately. That means everyone else probably never ends up seeing the spam at all (depending on how their clients handle un-certified emails. Most people will probably auto-trash them.)</p><p>However, white lists are still possible. If you like getting emails from a certain un-certified sources, just white-list them, and you'll continue to get them.  You can also use challenge-response or keyword set-ups for people sending you un-certified email.</p><p>TL;DR:<br>By proving who send the email (or, more precisely, which server did), Email Certification can hold the server owner responsible. If they send spam, they get de-certified, which means in all likely hood, they lose the ability to email anyone at all.  Spammers who can't get certified can't send emails anyone will see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or just use Email Certification.Long story short , everyone who wants to send Certified mail has to be 'certified ' by their ISP .
( UN-certified mail would still be possible , if you wish .
) Getting certified is nothing more than providing enough information to positively identify you , and costs a nominal fee.In return , you create a public/private key pair , and give the public one to the certifier .
The private key goes into your email server , which adds some headers to each outgoing email .
One of these is encrypted with the private key .
When someone with a certification-compliant email program receives a certified email , the program reads the headers , connects to the certifer 's certification server , and downloads the public key .
It then uses the public key to decrypt the encrypted header .
If successful , it proves that email came from the specified server , and no one else.If you get spam , your email client has a big 'report certified spam ' button .
Click it , and an email is auto-launched to the certifier of the sender .
The certifier contacts the sender and demands an explanation .
If sender was hacked , they fix the security hole and tell certifier they did so .
If spam was not spam , or a misunderstanding , they explain.If , OTOH , the sender does not reply , then the certifier revokes their certification , and from that moment on , all their ( the 'sender 's ) emails are UN-certified.What if a Certifier themselves is 'evil ' ?
Well , it 's certainly possible to have blacklists like they do now , but , instead of blacklisting IP addressed , which get re-assigned and cause trouble for their new owners , it would be evil Certifiers that get listed and blocked.Eventually , it 'll reach a point where any spam that is sent out will get the sender 'de-certified ' almost immediately .
That means everyone else probably never ends up seeing the spam at all ( depending on how their clients handle un-certified emails .
Most people will probably auto-trash them .
) However , white lists are still possible .
If you like getting emails from a certain un-certified sources , just white-list them , and you 'll continue to get them .
You can also use challenge-response or keyword set-ups for people sending you un-certified email.TL ; DR : By proving who send the email ( or , more precisely , which server did ) , Email Certification can hold the server owner responsible .
If they send spam , they get de-certified , which means in all likely hood , they lose the ability to email anyone at all .
Spammers who ca n't get certified ca n't send emails anyone will see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or just use Email Certification.Long story short, everyone who wants to send Certified mail has to be 'certified' by their ISP.
(UN-certified mail would still be possible, if you wish.
) Getting certified is nothing more than providing enough information to positively identify you, and costs a nominal fee.In return, you create a public/private key pair, and give the public one to the certifier.
The private key goes into your email server, which adds some headers to each outgoing email.
One of these is encrypted with the private key.
When someone with a certification-compliant email program receives a certified email, the program reads the headers, connects to the certifer's certification server, and downloads the public key.
It then uses the public key to decrypt the encrypted header.
If successful, it proves that email came from the specified server, and no one else.If you get spam, your email client has a big 'report certified spam' button.
Click it, and an email is auto-launched to the certifier of the sender.
The certifier contacts the sender and demands an explanation.
If sender was hacked, they fix the security hole and tell certifier they did so.
If spam was not spam, or a misunderstanding, they explain.If, OTOH,  the sender does not reply, then the certifier revokes their certification, and from that moment on, all their (the 'sender's) emails are UN-certified.What if a Certifier themselves is 'evil'?
Well, it's certainly possible to have blacklists like they do now, but, instead of blacklisting IP addressed, which get re-assigned and cause trouble for their new owners, it would be evil Certifiers that get listed and blocked.Eventually, it'll reach a point where any spam that is sent out will get the sender 'de-certified' almost immediately.
That means everyone else probably never ends up seeing the spam at all (depending on how their clients handle un-certified emails.
Most people will probably auto-trash them.
)However, white lists are still possible.
If you like getting emails from a certain un-certified sources, just white-list them, and you'll continue to get them.
You can also use challenge-response or keyword set-ups for people sending you un-certified email.TL;DR:By proving who send the email (or, more precisely, which server did), Email Certification can hold the server owner responsible.
If they send spam, they get de-certified, which means in all likely hood, they lose the ability to email anyone at all.
Spammers who can't get certified can't send emails anyone will see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30522556</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this cool?</title>
	<author>rastoboy29</author>
	<datestamp>1261488600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>I wish I was as sanguine as you seem to be about the future of the net, though.&nbsp; I don't see it getting any free-er any time soon.&nbsp; China's Great Firewall actually does a pretty fantastic job of censoring the net--even if someone can trivially bypass it, the fact is they *have* to, which has much more moral force than I'd certainly originally considered.<br><br>The future looks wireless, and right now wireless is a hellhole of proprietary bullshit.<br><br>And if you don't think our political and judicial systems are already tightly controlled by megacorporations, well, I don't know which world you grew up in.<br><br>I'm not saying it's dystopic, yet, but that possibility doesn't seem the least bit&nbsp; unrealistic to me.&nbsp; Wikileaks and bittorrent are under relentless legal attacks, and both of them rely on actual servers in actual places, which makes them vulnderable (even if widely distributed at the moment).</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish I was as sanguine as you seem to be about the future of the net , though.   I do n't see it getting any free-er any time soon.   China 's Great Firewall actually does a pretty fantastic job of censoring the net--even if someone can trivially bypass it , the fact is they * have * to , which has much more moral force than I 'd certainly originally considered.The future looks wireless , and right now wireless is a hellhole of proprietary bullshit.And if you do n't think our political and judicial systems are already tightly controlled by megacorporations , well , I do n't know which world you grew up in.I 'm not saying it 's dystopic , yet , but that possibility does n't seem the least bit   unrealistic to me.   Wikileaks and bittorrent are under relentless legal attacks , and both of them rely on actual servers in actual places , which makes them vulnderable ( even if widely distributed at the moment ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish I was as sanguine as you seem to be about the future of the net, though.  I don't see it getting any free-er any time soon.  China's Great Firewall actually does a pretty fantastic job of censoring the net--even if someone can trivially bypass it, the fact is they *have* to, which has much more moral force than I'd certainly originally considered.The future looks wireless, and right now wireless is a hellhole of proprietary bullshit.And if you don't think our political and judicial systems are already tightly controlled by megacorporations, well, I don't know which world you grew up in.I'm not saying it's dystopic, yet, but that possibility doesn't seem the least bit  unrealistic to me.  Wikileaks and bittorrent are under relentless legal attacks, and both of them rely on actual servers in actual places, which makes them vulnderable (even if widely distributed at the moment).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519790</id>
	<title>Re:DNA samples/Chips in fingertips?</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1261410660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>No further investigation is done</i> </p><p>And none should be. They're a potential customer buying IP addresses and hosting, not automatic weapons.</p><p>Pretty soon we're gonna be so "secure" it's gonna take an act of congress take a piss.</p></div><p>Yet, funnily enough, for me to get a measly 16 IPs (for 6 servers, 1 router, 3 dedicated workstations that are not permitted by law to have NAT, one more IP to a NAT router for other client stations and SOB/EOB) I have to justify each and every one of them, including possibly digging out the specific legal requirement for the 3 specialized workstations not being able to be NAT'd and identify the customer to further support why that law applies to them in support of us not being able to NAT those workstations.

</p><p>Kinda odd if it is easier to obtain a big block than a measly 16 for our legitimate needs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No further investigation is done And none should be .
They 're a potential customer buying IP addresses and hosting , not automatic weapons.Pretty soon we 're gon na be so " secure " it 's gon na take an act of congress take a piss.Yet , funnily enough , for me to get a measly 16 IPs ( for 6 servers , 1 router , 3 dedicated workstations that are not permitted by law to have NAT , one more IP to a NAT router for other client stations and SOB/EOB ) I have to justify each and every one of them , including possibly digging out the specific legal requirement for the 3 specialized workstations not being able to be NAT 'd and identify the customer to further support why that law applies to them in support of us not being able to NAT those workstations .
Kinda odd if it is easier to obtain a big block than a measly 16 for our legitimate needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> No further investigation is done And none should be.
They're a potential customer buying IP addresses and hosting, not automatic weapons.Pretty soon we're gonna be so "secure" it's gonna take an act of congress take a piss.Yet, funnily enough, for me to get a measly 16 IPs (for 6 servers, 1 router, 3 dedicated workstations that are not permitted by law to have NAT, one more IP to a NAT router for other client stations and SOB/EOB) I have to justify each and every one of them, including possibly digging out the specific legal requirement for the 3 specialized workstations not being able to be NAT'd and identify the customer to further support why that law applies to them in support of us not being able to NAT those workstations.
Kinda odd if it is easier to obtain a big block than a measly 16 for our legitimate needs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30520532</id>
	<title>Simple - ipV8</title>
	<author>Dogbertius</author>
	<datestamp>1261417920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't worry, once we we've needlessly partitioned away every last block of ipv6 addresses, we can repeat the exercise again with ipv8<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , once we we 've needlessly partitioned away every last block of ipv6 addresses , we can repeat the exercise again with ipv8 : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, once we we've needlessly partitioned away every last block of ipv6 addresses, we can repeat the exercise again with ipv8 :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517804</id>
	<title>Re:Old news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261395300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>No it's not, several of the larger spam/malware gangs including the infamous Russian Business Network have been doing this for several years now.  That's partly what prompted Spamhaus to create their solution to the problem: <a href="http://www.spamhaus.org/drop/" title="spamhaus.org">DROP</a> [spamhaus.org].  All it takes is a for the majority of the Tier 1 carriers to adopt the DROP list and it's pretty much game over for this this technique.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No it 's not , several of the larger spam/malware gangs including the infamous Russian Business Network have been doing this for several years now .
That 's partly what prompted Spamhaus to create their solution to the problem : DROP [ spamhaus.org ] .
All it takes is a for the majority of the Tier 1 carriers to adopt the DROP list and it 's pretty much game over for this this technique .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it's not, several of the larger spam/malware gangs including the infamous Russian Business Network have been doing this for several years now.
That's partly what prompted Spamhaus to create their solution to the problem: DROP [spamhaus.org].
All it takes is a for the majority of the Tier 1 carriers to adopt the DROP list and it's pretty much game over for this this technique.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517838</id>
	<title>This screws up other innocent good guys too</title>
	<author>phonewebcam</author>
	<datestamp>1261395480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have 4 dedicated servers with about 20 IP's spread across them and started getting mail rejections.This turned out to be because the whole range if IP's the hosters had used got blacklisted by spamhaus for exactly the reason stated in the article - one other "customer" had spammed with his IP's so spamhaus just added the whole range to their RBL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have 4 dedicated servers with about 20 IP 's spread across them and started getting mail rejections.This turned out to be because the whole range if IP 's the hosters had used got blacklisted by spamhaus for exactly the reason stated in the article - one other " customer " had spammed with his IP 's so spamhaus just added the whole range to their RBL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have 4 dedicated servers with about 20 IP's spread across them and started getting mail rejections.This turned out to be because the whole range if IP's the hosters had used got blacklisted by spamhaus for exactly the reason stated in the article - one other "customer" had spammed with his IP's so spamhaus just added the whole range to their RBL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30525248</id>
	<title>Re:Filtering easier?</title>
	<author>theCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1261504980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of messing around with setting up special server stuff, why not just use PGP/MIME to sign your outgoing emails?  Works the same, but doesn't require changing server software.  Of course, it still requires changing everyone's client software and behavior (at least over time), so it has all the drawbacks pointed out by the other response.  However, I feel it's more in line with the "dumb network" ideal of the Internet -- the smarts on how to handle email at the edges.  And, once everyone has a PGP/GPG key, we can (finally!) start sending encrypted emails to normal people.</p><p>Well, I can dream, anyway<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of messing around with setting up special server stuff , why not just use PGP/MIME to sign your outgoing emails ?
Works the same , but does n't require changing server software .
Of course , it still requires changing everyone 's client software and behavior ( at least over time ) , so it has all the drawbacks pointed out by the other response .
However , I feel it 's more in line with the " dumb network " ideal of the Internet -- the smarts on how to handle email at the edges .
And , once everyone has a PGP/GPG key , we can ( finally !
) start sending encrypted emails to normal people.Well , I can dream , anyway : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of messing around with setting up special server stuff, why not just use PGP/MIME to sign your outgoing emails?
Works the same, but doesn't require changing server software.
Of course, it still requires changing everyone's client software and behavior (at least over time), so it has all the drawbacks pointed out by the other response.
However, I feel it's more in line with the "dumb network" ideal of the Internet -- the smarts on how to handle email at the edges.
And, once everyone has a PGP/GPG key, we can (finally!
) start sending encrypted emails to normal people.Well, I can dream, anyway :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30520028</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517770</id>
	<title>....Yeah but are they Microsoft Certified?</title>
	<author>Bob\_Who</author>
	<datestamp>1261395060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...because if they were, then we'd really have to worry....about.....the unemployed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...because if they were , then we 'd really have to worry....about.....the unemployed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...because if they were, then we'd really have to worry....about.....the unemployed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517742</id>
	<title>Escalation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261394940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Ha ha!  Look at us!  We've got fat pipes that we can use to DoS almost anyone and spew spam all over the internet!  We so rule!  Ha ha!"</p><p><i>(the internet wises up to this; these people get kicked off their ISPs or out of their universities, more people get fat pipes, spam gets blacklisted, damage is mitigated)</i></p><p>"Well, fine.  We'll just use security flaws in swiss cheese-like browsers and operating systems, play on people's stupidity regarding computers, and turn everyone into our spam-dumping and DDoS-employing minions!  You can't stop us now!  Ha ha ha!"</p><p><i>(the internet wises up to this; more secure browsers and operating systems are deployed, better spam filtering is developed, more aggressive security measures pop up, some of which are ISP-level (for better or worse), more people are educated, damage is mitigated)</i></p><p>"Hrmph.  No matter.  Now we'll go one step higher and just get our own IP blocks and registrars, and then we'll get our own pipes!  Then we'll never have ISPs shut us down again!  We're so much more clever than you are!  Ha ha ha!"</p><p><i>(the internet wises up to this; the IP blocks are soon figured out, all traffic to them is blocked from other ISPs, Google and other search engines refuse to spider anything from those blocks, damage is mitigated)</i></p><p>"Oh... oh yeah?  Well, now we'll just go one step higher and use those pipes to make our OWN internet!  We'll have everything!  It'll all be ours!  And YOU won't be able to get into it to stop us!  HA HA HA HA!"</p><p><i>(the internet ignores this, that's somebody else's network now)</i></p><p>"...wait, hang on..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ha ha !
Look at us !
We 've got fat pipes that we can use to DoS almost anyone and spew spam all over the internet !
We so rule !
Ha ha !
" ( the internet wises up to this ; these people get kicked off their ISPs or out of their universities , more people get fat pipes , spam gets blacklisted , damage is mitigated ) " Well , fine .
We 'll just use security flaws in swiss cheese-like browsers and operating systems , play on people 's stupidity regarding computers , and turn everyone into our spam-dumping and DDoS-employing minions !
You ca n't stop us now !
Ha ha ha !
" ( the internet wises up to this ; more secure browsers and operating systems are deployed , better spam filtering is developed , more aggressive security measures pop up , some of which are ISP-level ( for better or worse ) , more people are educated , damage is mitigated ) " Hrmph .
No matter .
Now we 'll go one step higher and just get our own IP blocks and registrars , and then we 'll get our own pipes !
Then we 'll never have ISPs shut us down again !
We 're so much more clever than you are !
Ha ha ha !
" ( the internet wises up to this ; the IP blocks are soon figured out , all traffic to them is blocked from other ISPs , Google and other search engines refuse to spider anything from those blocks , damage is mitigated ) " Oh... oh yeah ?
Well , now we 'll just go one step higher and use those pipes to make our OWN internet !
We 'll have everything !
It 'll all be ours !
And YOU wo n't be able to get into it to stop us !
HA HA HA HA !
" ( the internet ignores this , that 's somebody else 's network now ) " ...wait , hang on... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ha ha!
Look at us!
We've got fat pipes that we can use to DoS almost anyone and spew spam all over the internet!
We so rule!
Ha ha!
"(the internet wises up to this; these people get kicked off their ISPs or out of their universities, more people get fat pipes, spam gets blacklisted, damage is mitigated)"Well, fine.
We'll just use security flaws in swiss cheese-like browsers and operating systems, play on people's stupidity regarding computers, and turn everyone into our spam-dumping and DDoS-employing minions!
You can't stop us now!
Ha ha ha!
"(the internet wises up to this; more secure browsers and operating systems are deployed, better spam filtering is developed, more aggressive security measures pop up, some of which are ISP-level (for better or worse), more people are educated, damage is mitigated)"Hrmph.
No matter.
Now we'll go one step higher and just get our own IP blocks and registrars, and then we'll get our own pipes!
Then we'll never have ISPs shut us down again!
We're so much more clever than you are!
Ha ha ha!
"(the internet wises up to this; the IP blocks are soon figured out, all traffic to them is blocked from other ISPs, Google and other search engines refuse to spider anything from those blocks, damage is mitigated)"Oh... oh yeah?
Well, now we'll just go one step higher and use those pipes to make our OWN internet!
We'll have everything!
It'll all be ours!
And YOU won't be able to get into it to stop us!
HA HA HA HA!
"(the internet ignores this, that's somebody else's network now)"...wait, hang on..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518684</id>
	<title>But when spam is illegal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261401600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...which it is in Eu - they are going to slapped down just as hard. And with huge amounts of hardware being confiscated they are not going to try that trick anytime soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...which it is in Eu - they are going to slapped down just as hard .
And with huge amounts of hardware being confiscated they are not going to try that trick anytime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...which it is in Eu - they are going to slapped down just as hard.
And with huge amounts of hardware being confiscated they are not going to try that trick anytime soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517788</id>
	<title>ISP Level?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261395240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When they start requesting AS numbers, running their own infrastructure or even providing a service maybe then could this story have some merit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When they start requesting AS numbers , running their own infrastructure or even providing a service maybe then could this story have some merit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they start requesting AS numbers, running their own infrastructure or even providing a service maybe then could this story have some merit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30526368</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this cool?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261510200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://anonet.org/" title="anonet.org" rel="nofollow">Anonet</a> [anonet.org], <a href="http://darknet.me/" title="darknet.me" rel="nofollow">Darknet</a> [darknet.me]. Join up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anonet [ anonet.org ] , Darknet [ darknet.me ] .
Join up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anonet [anonet.org], Darknet [darknet.me].
Join up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30521672</id>
	<title>Blue Frog</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261476060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was an attempt to quell spam by a company named Blue Security Inc., using custom software "Blue Frog."<br>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue\_Frog]<br>What they did was set up honey pot addresses, and for every spam received, send a request to the business promoted by the spam - not the spammers. It seemed to be working; so well in fact that the spammers organized a DOS attack on them.</p><p>I think this may be the way to kill the spammers, start attacking the companies behind them, who must have some public and unique interface, i.e. a credit card account, a pay pal account, an e-mail address to write to to collect your Nigerian "millions"... etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was an attempt to quell spam by a company named Blue Security Inc. , using custom software " Blue Frog .
" [ http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue \ _Frog ] What they did was set up honey pot addresses , and for every spam received , send a request to the business promoted by the spam - not the spammers .
It seemed to be working ; so well in fact that the spammers organized a DOS attack on them.I think this may be the way to kill the spammers , start attacking the companies behind them , who must have some public and unique interface , i.e .
a credit card account , a pay pal account , an e-mail address to write to to collect your Nigerian " millions " ... etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was an attempt to quell spam by a company named Blue Security Inc., using custom software "Blue Frog.
"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue\_Frog]What they did was set up honey pot addresses, and for every spam received, send a request to the business promoted by the spam - not the spammers.
It seemed to be working; so well in fact that the spammers organized a DOS attack on them.I think this may be the way to kill the spammers, start attacking the companies behind them, who must have some public and unique interface, i.e.
a credit card account, a pay pal account, an e-mail address to write to to collect your Nigerian "millions"... etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519654</id>
	<title>Re:Is the address space for something else?</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1261409640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>We all know that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net domains not only are not restricted to sales to people/companies/organizations in the US, they aren't even restricted to being sold by companies in the US.</p></div><p>I know I might be nitpicky here, but why do you feel that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net (and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.biz,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.name,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.info and a plethora others) should only be restricted to the US?</p></div><p>I didn't actually say that, and admittedly when typing my post I was concerned about the possibility someone might read it that way.<br> <br>
The point I was trying to make has more to do with registration of domains.  It is trivial for overseas spammers to give the impression of being an American company, and registrar credentials are generally crappy at best.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know that .com , .org , .net domains not only are not restricted to sales to people/companies/organizations in the US , they are n't even restricted to being sold by companies in the US.I know I might be nitpicky here , but why do you feel that .com , .org , .net ( and .biz , .name , .info and a plethora others ) should only be restricted to the US ? I did n't actually say that , and admittedly when typing my post I was concerned about the possibility someone might read it that way .
The point I was trying to make has more to do with registration of domains .
It is trivial for overseas spammers to give the impression of being an American company , and registrar credentials are generally crappy at best .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know that .com, .org, .net domains not only are not restricted to sales to people/companies/organizations in the US, they aren't even restricted to being sold by companies in the US.I know I might be nitpicky here, but why do you feel that .com, .org, .net (and .biz, .name, .info and a plethora others) should only be restricted to the US?I didn't actually say that, and admittedly when typing my post I was concerned about the possibility someone might read it that way.
The point I was trying to make has more to do with registration of domains.
It is trivial for overseas spammers to give the impression of being an American company, and registrar credentials are generally crappy at best.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518562</id>
	<title>Re:DNA samples/Chips in fingertips?</title>
	<author>techno-vampire</author>
	<datestamp>1261400520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Pretty soon we're gonna be so "secure" it's gonna take an act of congress take a piss.</i> <p>
If so, that's going to make it damned hard to be a phlebotomist.  It's a good thing I only plan on leaving one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty soon we 're gon na be so " secure " it 's gon na take an act of congress take a piss .
If so , that 's going to make it damned hard to be a phlebotomist .
It 's a good thing I only plan on leaving one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty soon we're gonna be so "secure" it's gonna take an act of congress take a piss.
If so, that's going to make it damned hard to be a phlebotomist.
It's a good thing I only plan on leaving one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518552</id>
	<title>Subject</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1261400460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Servers or not, it's a shitty datacenter that doesn't enforce its AUP with its customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Servers or not , it 's a shitty datacenter that does n't enforce its AUP with its customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Servers or not, it's a shitty datacenter that doesn't enforce its AUP with its customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517760</id>
	<title>Actually I see it like this...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261395000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally I would be running my own DNS servers / Anon proxies on those blocks of IPs so that bot traffic can be managed better.<br> <br>Just my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.02</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I would be running my own DNS servers / Anon proxies on those blocks of IPs so that bot traffic can be managed better .
Just my .02</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I would be running my own DNS servers / Anon proxies on those blocks of IPs so that bot traffic can be managed better.
Just my .02</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519492</id>
	<title>Are IP ranges free all of a sudden??!!</title>
	<author>kcoriginal</author>
	<datestamp>1261408260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Boo to the writer... or to the Europeans... which is it?

So, like 2 years ago, when I launched my own consultancy, I also wanted to offer hosting. Like every other geek out there.

I just remember that there was no way to get my own block from IANA/ICANN (whoever the he!! it was)... unless I had some insane amount like $2500 US. Anyone can confirm that?

Did the price thing change? I just remember feeling cheated that an average Joe couldn't fill out the right paperwork and file a reasonable fee to get his small business started. He!!, for $2500, I could get a full  business financed... when did it become illegal to be a lil ole small business guy? This is why all the shops just resorted to raping people... they can't win for losing.. so, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em... is that it? 

Is it easy to get a block from Europe? Perhaps I should cook up some elaborate scheme to VPN my European class B to my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/28 here in TX... hmmm....

  

kc</htmltext>
<tokenext>Boo to the writer... or to the Europeans... which is it ?
So , like 2 years ago , when I launched my own consultancy , I also wanted to offer hosting .
Like every other geek out there .
I just remember that there was no way to get my own block from IANA/ICANN ( whoever the he ! !
it was ) ... unless I had some insane amount like $ 2500 US .
Anyone can confirm that ?
Did the price thing change ?
I just remember feeling cheated that an average Joe could n't fill out the right paperwork and file a reasonable fee to get his small business started .
He ! ! , for $ 2500 , I could get a full business financed... when did it become illegal to be a lil ole small business guy ?
This is why all the shops just resorted to raping people... they ca n't win for losing.. so , if you ca n't beat 'em , join 'em... is that it ?
Is it easy to get a block from Europe ?
Perhaps I should cook up some elaborate scheme to VPN my European class B to my /28 here in TX... hmmm... . kc</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boo to the writer... or to the Europeans... which is it?
So, like 2 years ago, when I launched my own consultancy, I also wanted to offer hosting.
Like every other geek out there.
I just remember that there was no way to get my own block from IANA/ICANN (whoever the he!!
it was)... unless I had some insane amount like $2500 US.
Anyone can confirm that?
Did the price thing change?
I just remember feeling cheated that an average Joe couldn't fill out the right paperwork and file a reasonable fee to get his small business started.
He!!, for $2500, I could get a full  business financed... when did it become illegal to be a lil ole small business guy?
This is why all the shops just resorted to raping people... they can't win for losing.. so, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em... is that it?
Is it easy to get a block from Europe?
Perhaps I should cook up some elaborate scheme to VPN my European class B to my /28 here in TX... hmmm....

  

kc</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517428</id>
	<title>I thought...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261393200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought the entire reason why botnets were so hard to stop is because they could be on a huge range of IP addresses. With this isn't it trivial to see that Evilnet ISP is a botnet and has the IP addresses xxx.xxx.x.xxx- xxx.xxx.x.yyy and just block those? I mean, yeah, if they had enough bandwidth they could still flood you with requests that slow down the servers because they all need to be blocked, but shouldn't it make blocking them easier?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the entire reason why botnets were so hard to stop is because they could be on a huge range of IP addresses .
With this is n't it trivial to see that Evilnet ISP is a botnet and has the IP addresses xxx.xxx.x.xxx- xxx.xxx.x.yyy and just block those ?
I mean , yeah , if they had enough bandwidth they could still flood you with requests that slow down the servers because they all need to be blocked , but should n't it make blocking them easier ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the entire reason why botnets were so hard to stop is because they could be on a huge range of IP addresses.
With this isn't it trivial to see that Evilnet ISP is a botnet and has the IP addresses xxx.xxx.x.xxx- xxx.xxx.x.yyy and just block those?
I mean, yeah, if they had enough bandwidth they could still flood you with requests that slow down the servers because they all need to be blocked, but shouldn't it make blocking them easier?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517404</id>
	<title>Filtering easier?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261393020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they own the IP block (or it's assigned exclusively to them) then wouldn't that make it a lot easier to block them?  Why complain?  Just find out their range and shitlist it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they own the IP block ( or it 's assigned exclusively to them ) then would n't that make it a lot easier to block them ?
Why complain ?
Just find out their range and shitlist it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they own the IP block (or it's assigned exclusively to them) then wouldn't that make it a lot easier to block them?
Why complain?
Just find out their range and shitlist it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418</id>
	<title>Easier to block?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261393080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe I'm not being smart today, but doesn't that actually make it easier to block the bad guys, once their address space is identified?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm not being smart today , but does n't that actually make it easier to block the bad guys , once their address space is identified ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm not being smart today, but doesn't that actually make it easier to block the bad guys, once their address space is identified?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30521736</id>
	<title>Re:Easier to block?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261476660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can always clean up ip's. It takes time and money. There's no clean up of everything though. Someone or some organization will record the blocked range and keep it apart of their network setup.  If your a spammer; your always purchasing new ip's to stay a head becuase your basically shitting in your own backyard. It's up to ISP's to recognize this and not resell ip's to client who do this. On the flip side; honest people, have this happen to them all the time where they've been sold a dirty range. It makes for the sore experience especially if your ready to get your stuff out their on the net.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can always clean up ip 's .
It takes time and money .
There 's no clean up of everything though .
Someone or some organization will record the blocked range and keep it apart of their network setup .
If your a spammer ; your always purchasing new ip 's to stay a head becuase your basically shitting in your own backyard .
It 's up to ISP 's to recognize this and not resell ip 's to client who do this .
On the flip side ; honest people , have this happen to them all the time where they 've been sold a dirty range .
It makes for the sore experience especially if your ready to get your stuff out their on the net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can always clean up ip's.
It takes time and money.
There's no clean up of everything though.
Someone or some organization will record the blocked range and keep it apart of their network setup.
If your a spammer; your always purchasing new ip's to stay a head becuase your basically shitting in your own backyard.
It's up to ISP's to recognize this and not resell ip's to client who do this.
On the flip side; honest people, have this happen to them all the time where they've been sold a dirty range.
It makes for the sore experience especially if your ready to get your stuff out their on the net.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517460</id>
	<title>Friends don't let friends surf the web in IE</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1261393320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It took years, but Firefox continues to gain where IE continues to fall behind.</p><p>I really honestly believe if all the FOSS advocates out there made an effort to switch a handful of family and friends to Linux, that they in turn would do the same.</p><p>I'm converting my family and friends because I'm tired of being asked to clean viruses and the like. With the web being as dangerous as it is, can we in good conscience allow our friends and family who don't know any better continue to fire up IE and infect their PCs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It took years , but Firefox continues to gain where IE continues to fall behind.I really honestly believe if all the FOSS advocates out there made an effort to switch a handful of family and friends to Linux , that they in turn would do the same.I 'm converting my family and friends because I 'm tired of being asked to clean viruses and the like .
With the web being as dangerous as it is , can we in good conscience allow our friends and family who do n't know any better continue to fire up IE and infect their PCs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It took years, but Firefox continues to gain where IE continues to fall behind.I really honestly believe if all the FOSS advocates out there made an effort to switch a handful of family and friends to Linux, that they in turn would do the same.I'm converting my family and friends because I'm tired of being asked to clean viruses and the like.
With the web being as dangerous as it is, can we in good conscience allow our friends and family who don't know any better continue to fire up IE and infect their PCs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30522566</id>
	<title>next up , pirates beware</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1261488660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is the next phase of operation DESTROY KNOWLEDGE and FREEDOM</p><p>go back and look in history now and see what you find<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....<br>and this is an attempt at nothing less then stopping people from doing business on the net without paying MS or a college or university thousands in fees er tuition's and such.</p><p>any moron that puts up a botnet doing illegal shit on a server that doesnt have a legite credit card that ( the ISP renting ) hasn;t verified and checked is well you get the hint. NEXT is fake certification and id, and WHOM AGAIN suffers.<br>YOU me and the rest of mankind. SERIOUSLY go get and capture some murderers and rapists. LIKE OMG<br>someone has EMAIL oh my woooo.<br>email has been dead for a few years.<br>only people that use it are ISPS period</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is the next phase of operation DESTROY KNOWLEDGE and FREEDOMgo back and look in history now and see what you find .....and this is an attempt at nothing less then stopping people from doing business on the net without paying MS or a college or university thousands in fees er tuition 's and such.any moron that puts up a botnet doing illegal shit on a server that doesnt have a legite credit card that ( the ISP renting ) hasn ; t verified and checked is well you get the hint .
NEXT is fake certification and id , and WHOM AGAIN suffers.YOU me and the rest of mankind .
SERIOUSLY go get and capture some murderers and rapists .
LIKE OMGsomeone has EMAIL oh my woooo.email has been dead for a few years.only people that use it are ISPS period</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is the next phase of operation DESTROY KNOWLEDGE and FREEDOMgo back and look in history now and see what you find .....and this is an attempt at nothing less then stopping people from doing business on the net without paying MS or a college or university thousands in fees er tuition's and such.any moron that puts up a botnet doing illegal shit on a server that doesnt have a legite credit card that ( the ISP renting ) hasn;t verified and checked is well you get the hint.
NEXT is fake certification and id, and WHOM AGAIN suffers.YOU me and the rest of mankind.
SERIOUSLY go get and capture some murderers and rapists.
LIKE OMGsomeone has EMAIL oh my woooo.email has been dead for a few years.only people that use it are ISPS period</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30522542</id>
	<title>Re:Is the address space for something else?</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1261488540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>err the TLD's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org etc are not and have never been "American" they are by design generic domains that have no geographic ties.

Though I am surprised that within the EU that member states can restrict the sale of country tld's to residents of that country how that fits with the suposed "free movement of services" i dont know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>err the TLD 's .com .org etc are not and have never been " American " they are by design generic domains that have no geographic ties .
Though I am surprised that within the EU that member states can restrict the sale of country tld 's to residents of that country how that fits with the suposed " free movement of services " i dont know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>err the TLD's .com .org etc are not and have never been "American" they are by design generic domains that have no geographic ties.
Though I am surprised that within the EU that member states can restrict the sale of country tld's to residents of that country how that fits with the suposed "free movement of services" i dont know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517474</id>
	<title>Isn't this cool?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261393380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember back in the 90s when everyone was jizzing in their pants about Bruce Sterling and Neal Stephenson's writing, dreaming of actually implementing the ideas therein?  Data havens, crypto-anarchism, impregnable anonymity, hackers making a decent living by a life of crime, and so forth?  </p><p>Well, now the future is here.  Kind of sucks, doesn't it?  Careful what you wish for, you just might get it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember back in the 90s when everyone was jizzing in their pants about Bruce Sterling and Neal Stephenson 's writing , dreaming of actually implementing the ideas therein ?
Data havens , crypto-anarchism , impregnable anonymity , hackers making a decent living by a life of crime , and so forth ?
Well , now the future is here .
Kind of sucks , does n't it ?
Careful what you wish for , you just might get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember back in the 90s when everyone was jizzing in their pants about Bruce Sterling and Neal Stephenson's writing, dreaming of actually implementing the ideas therein?
Data havens, crypto-anarchism, impregnable anonymity, hackers making a decent living by a life of crime, and so forth?
Well, now the future is here.
Kind of sucks, doesn't it?
Careful what you wish for, you just might get it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519288</id>
	<title>Re:Easier to block?</title>
	<author>Reaperducer</author>
	<datestamp>1261406880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Happened to me.  launched a site on Pair networks a few years back and had problems with my outgoing mail.  Turned out the guy who had the IP address before me was blacklisted.  Pair just pushed me over to a new address.  No problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Happened to me .
launched a site on Pair networks a few years back and had problems with my outgoing mail .
Turned out the guy who had the IP address before me was blacklisted .
Pair just pushed me over to a new address .
No problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Happened to me.
launched a site on Pair networks a few years back and had problems with my outgoing mail.
Turned out the guy who had the IP address before me was blacklisted.
Pair just pushed me over to a new address.
No problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517800</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this cool?</title>
	<author>MathiasRav</author>
	<datestamp>1261395240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remember back in the 90s when everyone was jizzing in their pants about Bruce Sterling and Neal Stephenson's writing, dreaming of actually implementing the ideas therein?  Data havens, crypto-anarchism, impregnable anonymity, hackers making a decent living by a life of crime, and so forth?</p></div><p>Somewhere, on a secret global malware authors' intranet, on a site running Slashcode, scammers are praising 2010 as the year of unregulated DoS'ing on the Internet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember back in the 90s when everyone was jizzing in their pants about Bruce Sterling and Neal Stephenson 's writing , dreaming of actually implementing the ideas therein ?
Data havens , crypto-anarchism , impregnable anonymity , hackers making a decent living by a life of crime , and so forth ? Somewhere , on a secret global malware authors ' intranet , on a site running Slashcode , scammers are praising 2010 as the year of unregulated DoS'ing on the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember back in the 90s when everyone was jizzing in their pants about Bruce Sterling and Neal Stephenson's writing, dreaming of actually implementing the ideas therein?
Data havens, crypto-anarchism, impregnable anonymity, hackers making a decent living by a life of crime, and so forth?Somewhere, on a secret global malware authors' intranet, on a site running Slashcode, scammers are praising 2010 as the year of unregulated DoS'ing on the Internet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517736</id>
	<title>Wake Me</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1261394880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Sure, but the thing is IPv4 IP addresses are limited.</i> <br> <br>
Exactly.  Wake me when they become an IPv6 ISP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , but the thing is IPv4 IP addresses are limited .
Exactly. Wake me when they become an IPv6 ISP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, but the thing is IPv4 IP addresses are limited.
Exactly.  Wake me when they become an IPv6 ISP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30521722</id>
	<title>Re:DNA samples/Chips in fingertips?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261476480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Artificially scarce. Government over-regulation is not excused by refusing to use IPv6. Furthermore, no government should influence IP trade, as it can harm the creation of sites (try to open a website mocking a politician...), and could be abused hypothetically in the future by bureaucrats ("won't nobody think of the children/copyright/my puritan world view!").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Artificially scarce .
Government over-regulation is not excused by refusing to use IPv6 .
Furthermore , no government should influence IP trade , as it can harm the creation of sites ( try to open a website mocking a politician... ) , and could be abused hypothetically in the future by bureaucrats ( " wo n't nobody think of the children/copyright/my puritan world view !
" ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Artificially scarce.
Government over-regulation is not excused by refusing to use IPv6.
Furthermore, no government should influence IP trade, as it can harm the creation of sites (try to open a website mocking a politician...), and could be abused hypothetically in the future by bureaucrats ("won't nobody think of the children/copyright/my puritan world view!
").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517492</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30522962</id>
	<title>Re:Uh, No</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1261492980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SO you're saying that *someone* should hack into the spammers boxen and and install a child porn archive or similarly regional taboo - then bring public attention to it? Oooohhh that sounds like a very vigilante grey hat goal to achieve. So whom will take up the gauntlet? Any "NetMan" around to protect us all from organized crime on the net?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SO you 're saying that * someone * should hack into the spammers boxen and and install a child porn archive or similarly regional taboo - then bring public attention to it ?
Oooohhh that sounds like a very vigilante grey hat goal to achieve .
So whom will take up the gauntlet ?
Any " NetMan " around to protect us all from organized crime on the net ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SO you're saying that *someone* should hack into the spammers boxen and and install a child porn archive or similarly regional taboo - then bring public attention to it?
Oooohhh that sounds like a very vigilante grey hat goal to achieve.
So whom will take up the gauntlet?
Any "NetMan" around to protect us all from organized crime on the net?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517936</id>
	<title>Re:Friends don't let friends surf the web in IE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261396140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Firefox is just a dumbed down version of Mozilla.</p><p>Can you morons stop dumbing down Linux far enough for all your friends and family to use, or do I have to switch to FreeBSD or something?</p><p>Do you seriously think that all Linux needs is better marketing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox is just a dumbed down version of Mozilla.Can you morons stop dumbing down Linux far enough for all your friends and family to use , or do I have to switch to FreeBSD or something ? Do you seriously think that all Linux needs is better marketing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox is just a dumbed down version of Mozilla.Can you morons stop dumbing down Linux far enough for all your friends and family to use, or do I have to switch to FreeBSD or something?Do you seriously think that all Linux needs is better marketing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519716</id>
	<title>Re:Easier to block?</title>
	<author>hack  slash</author>
	<datestamp>1261410120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IPv4 I would think so, my HOSTS file is 600kB from <a href="http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm" title="mvps.org">http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm</a> [mvps.org] (I don't soley rely on it as I also use AdBlock+ with FF), but if everything went IPv6 overnight the blocklists could get into some seriously ludicrus filesizes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IPv4 I would think so , my HOSTS file is 600kB from http : //www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [ mvps.org ] ( I do n't soley rely on it as I also use AdBlock + with FF ) , but if everything went IPv6 overnight the blocklists could get into some seriously ludicrus filesizes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPv4 I would think so, my HOSTS file is 600kB from http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] (I don't soley rely on it as I also use AdBlock+ with FF), but if everything went IPv6 overnight the blocklists could get into some seriously ludicrus filesizes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517570</id>
	<title>Is the address space for something else?</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1261393800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, we know a lot of the botnet activities that we care about - distributed spamming, distributed hacking, etc...  But I suspect that isn't what they want the dedicated IP space for.  People already pointed out that if the lion's share of your spam or hacking attempts came from a single IP block, it would be trivial to block it.<br> <br>
Hence I suspect the operators want the IP space for other uses.  Consider your average spam - we'll say it asks you to buy viagra through <a href="http://joescheapdrugs.com/" title="joescheapdrugs.com">joescheapdrugs.com</a> [joescheapdrugs.com].  Now joescheapdrugs.com needs to be purchased, which requires a registrar.  It also needs to be resolved via a DNS server somewhere (which isn't always done by the registrar or ISP).  If joescheapdrugs.com were an average spamvertised site, it would likely be hosted in one continent, registered through a registrar in another, and resolved by a DNS in yet another.<br> <br>
The IP space would be useful because the DNS could be done in that range, and once the spammers establish an accredited registrar they could sell themselves domains from there too.  We all know that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net domains not only are not restricted to sales <i>to</i> people/companies/organizations in the US, they aren't even restricted to being sold <i>by</i> companies in the US.  So by owning IP space, they can actually keep more of their own money for their operations, thus increasing their profit margins.  They can offer hosting, DNS, and registration services for anyone who wants to sell anything, and then sell them spamming services as well.  <br> <br>It becomes one-stop-shopping for vendors trying to make a fast buck (or those who don't know better).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , we know a lot of the botnet activities that we care about - distributed spamming , distributed hacking , etc... But I suspect that is n't what they want the dedicated IP space for .
People already pointed out that if the lion 's share of your spam or hacking attempts came from a single IP block , it would be trivial to block it .
Hence I suspect the operators want the IP space for other uses .
Consider your average spam - we 'll say it asks you to buy viagra through joescheapdrugs.com [ joescheapdrugs.com ] .
Now joescheapdrugs.com needs to be purchased , which requires a registrar .
It also needs to be resolved via a DNS server somewhere ( which is n't always done by the registrar or ISP ) .
If joescheapdrugs.com were an average spamvertised site , it would likely be hosted in one continent , registered through a registrar in another , and resolved by a DNS in yet another .
The IP space would be useful because the DNS could be done in that range , and once the spammers establish an accredited registrar they could sell themselves domains from there too .
We all know that .com , .org , .net domains not only are not restricted to sales to people/companies/organizations in the US , they are n't even restricted to being sold by companies in the US .
So by owning IP space , they can actually keep more of their own money for their operations , thus increasing their profit margins .
They can offer hosting , DNS , and registration services for anyone who wants to sell anything , and then sell them spamming services as well .
It becomes one-stop-shopping for vendors trying to make a fast buck ( or those who do n't know better ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, we know a lot of the botnet activities that we care about - distributed spamming, distributed hacking, etc...  But I suspect that isn't what they want the dedicated IP space for.
People already pointed out that if the lion's share of your spam or hacking attempts came from a single IP block, it would be trivial to block it.
Hence I suspect the operators want the IP space for other uses.
Consider your average spam - we'll say it asks you to buy viagra through joescheapdrugs.com [joescheapdrugs.com].
Now joescheapdrugs.com needs to be purchased, which requires a registrar.
It also needs to be resolved via a DNS server somewhere (which isn't always done by the registrar or ISP).
If joescheapdrugs.com were an average spamvertised site, it would likely be hosted in one continent, registered through a registrar in another, and resolved by a DNS in yet another.
The IP space would be useful because the DNS could be done in that range, and once the spammers establish an accredited registrar they could sell themselves domains from there too.
We all know that .com, .org, .net domains not only are not restricted to sales to people/companies/organizations in the US, they aren't even restricted to being sold by companies in the US.
So by owning IP space, they can actually keep more of their own money for their operations, thus increasing their profit margins.
They can offer hosting, DNS, and registration services for anyone who wants to sell anything, and then sell them spamming services as well.
It becomes one-stop-shopping for vendors trying to make a fast buck (or those who don't know better).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517496</id>
	<title>Re:Easier to block?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261393440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would think, that the crimals would use a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP\_spoofing" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">forged source IP address </a> [wikipedia.org] as not to reveal thier true IP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would think , that the crimals would use a forged source IP address [ wikipedia.org ] as not to reveal thier true IP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would think, that the crimals would use a forged source IP address  [wikipedia.org] as not to reveal thier true IP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519426</id>
	<title>Re:Easier to block?</title>
	<author>chapstercni</author>
	<datestamp>1261407780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice troubleshooting. Glad you terminated them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice troubleshooting .
Glad you terminated them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice troubleshooting.
Glad you terminated them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517472</id>
	<title>Hyperbole</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261393380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having a block of IP addresses does not make one an ISP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having a block of IP addresses does not make one an ISP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having a block of IP addresses does not make one an ISP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517444</id>
	<title>Re:Easier to block?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261393260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>short\_answer = "yes"<br>long\_answer = "hell yes"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>short \ _answer = " yes " long \ _answer = " hell yes "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>short\_answer = "yes"long\_answer = "hell yes"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518808</id>
	<title>Re:Easier to block?</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1261402980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
No.. it's worse than that.  IP addresses aren't bought or sold.
</p><p>
Once they are no longer using the IPs, once they cancel the connection, the IP delegation goes away.
</p><p>
If the IPs came from the ISP, that ISP has to re-use such IPs: they <b>count against</b> the ISP's ability to justify need for more IP addresses.
</p><p>
If the IPs came from a RIR, once the justification goes away, the IP addresses are supposed to be returned, or they get revoked when the recipient of the IPs stops paying their annual maintenance fees.
</p><p>
In any case, the IPs eventually go back to the free pool, and get allocated to someone else.
</p><p>
The registries aren't going to try and "clean" blacklists, neither will ISPs.   The recipient of IPs inherits the problem,  to deal with any connectivity issues  caused by blacklisting.
</p><p>
For IPs received from an ISP though... you <b>should</b> be able to convince your ISP to get you new IPs and allow you to move, if you're willing to take the time and energy to renumber, and (for some ISPs), there may be fees involved in you making the change requests, for the time it takes the ISP to make changes.
</p><p>
In many ways, poorly-maintained blacklists are <b>just as harmful</b>  to the internet and end-to-end universal connectivity, as the spammers and malware peddlers are.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No.. it 's worse than that .
IP addresses are n't bought or sold .
Once they are no longer using the IPs , once they cancel the connection , the IP delegation goes away .
If the IPs came from the ISP , that ISP has to re-use such IPs : they count against the ISP 's ability to justify need for more IP addresses .
If the IPs came from a RIR , once the justification goes away , the IP addresses are supposed to be returned , or they get revoked when the recipient of the IPs stops paying their annual maintenance fees .
In any case , the IPs eventually go back to the free pool , and get allocated to someone else .
The registries are n't going to try and " clean " blacklists , neither will ISPs .
The recipient of IPs inherits the problem , to deal with any connectivity issues caused by blacklisting .
For IPs received from an ISP though... you should be able to convince your ISP to get you new IPs and allow you to move , if you 're willing to take the time and energy to renumber , and ( for some ISPs ) , there may be fees involved in you making the change requests , for the time it takes the ISP to make changes .
In many ways , poorly-maintained blacklists are just as harmful to the internet and end-to-end universal connectivity , as the spammers and malware peddlers are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
No.. it's worse than that.
IP addresses aren't bought or sold.
Once they are no longer using the IPs, once they cancel the connection, the IP delegation goes away.
If the IPs came from the ISP, that ISP has to re-use such IPs: they count against the ISP's ability to justify need for more IP addresses.
If the IPs came from a RIR, once the justification goes away, the IP addresses are supposed to be returned, or they get revoked when the recipient of the IPs stops paying their annual maintenance fees.
In any case, the IPs eventually go back to the free pool, and get allocated to someone else.
The registries aren't going to try and "clean" blacklists, neither will ISPs.
The recipient of IPs inherits the problem,  to deal with any connectivity issues  caused by blacklisting.
For IPs received from an ISP though... you should be able to convince your ISP to get you new IPs and allow you to move, if you're willing to take the time and energy to renumber, and (for some ISPs), there may be fees involved in you making the change requests, for the time it takes the ISP to make changes.
In many ways, poorly-maintained blacklists are just as harmful  to the internet and end-to-end universal connectivity, as the spammers and malware peddlers are.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517734</id>
	<title>Uh, No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261394880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pipes and buildings and computers need to live somewhere.  Find them and shut them down physically.</p><p>How do you find them?  Follow the money.</p><p>They moved stuff into the cloud?<br>Clouds need to live somewhere.  Find them and threaten to shut the cloud down physically.  The cloud will then be willing to talk to you, and will shut down the people doing bad things.</p><p>How do you find them?  Again, follow the money.</p><p>It's NEVER hard to shut someone down.<br>What's hard is organizing the people with legal authority and getting them to give a shit.</p><p>Nerds like to think that the internet is some awesome force, and that information wants to be free, etc.</p><p>The internet is a fucking physical network maintained by real people.  Abstract all you want.  Personify all you want.  But when you get the suits lined up against you, you're going down.</p><p>If you want to test it, just do the something that will get the most suits lined up against you.</p><p>USA?  Child porn.<br>Germany?  Swastikas and Hitler.<br>Middle East?  A drawing of Mohamed.</p><p>The bottom line is that no one gives a shit that grandma's PC is thoroughly owned, or that your inbox is 99\% spam, or whatever else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pipes and buildings and computers need to live somewhere .
Find them and shut them down physically.How do you find them ?
Follow the money.They moved stuff into the cloud ? Clouds need to live somewhere .
Find them and threaten to shut the cloud down physically .
The cloud will then be willing to talk to you , and will shut down the people doing bad things.How do you find them ?
Again , follow the money.It 's NEVER hard to shut someone down.What 's hard is organizing the people with legal authority and getting them to give a shit.Nerds like to think that the internet is some awesome force , and that information wants to be free , etc.The internet is a fucking physical network maintained by real people .
Abstract all you want .
Personify all you want .
But when you get the suits lined up against you , you 're going down.If you want to test it , just do the something that will get the most suits lined up against you.USA ?
Child porn.Germany ?
Swastikas and Hitler.Middle East ?
A drawing of Mohamed.The bottom line is that no one gives a shit that grandma 's PC is thoroughly owned , or that your inbox is 99 \ % spam , or whatever else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pipes and buildings and computers need to live somewhere.
Find them and shut them down physically.How do you find them?
Follow the money.They moved stuff into the cloud?Clouds need to live somewhere.
Find them and threaten to shut the cloud down physically.
The cloud will then be willing to talk to you, and will shut down the people doing bad things.How do you find them?
Again, follow the money.It's NEVER hard to shut someone down.What's hard is organizing the people with legal authority and getting them to give a shit.Nerds like to think that the internet is some awesome force, and that information wants to be free, etc.The internet is a fucking physical network maintained by real people.
Abstract all you want.
Personify all you want.
But when you get the suits lined up against you, you're going down.If you want to test it, just do the something that will get the most suits lined up against you.USA?
Child porn.Germany?
Swastikas and Hitler.Middle East?
A drawing of Mohamed.The bottom line is that no one gives a shit that grandma's PC is thoroughly owned, or that your inbox is 99\% spam, or whatever else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518520</id>
	<title>just don't route it!</title>
	<author>Gunstick</author>
	<datestamp>1261400160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Delete the <a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomes\_System" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">AS</a> [wikipedia.org] from the routing tables and don't peer with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Delete the AS [ wikipedia.org ] from the routing tables and do n't peer with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Delete the AS [wikipedia.org] from the routing tables and don't peer with them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30522282</id>
	<title>Re:youtubers beware</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1261484820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I believe this sentence was designed to make youtube commenters' heads to explode</i></p><p>The second 'to' shouldn't be there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe this sentence was designed to make youtube commenters ' heads to explodeThe second 'to ' should n't be there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe this sentence was designed to make youtube commenters' heads to explodeThe second 'to' shouldn't be there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517582</id>
	<title>Re:DNA samples/Chips in fingertips?</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1261393860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Pretty soon we're gonna be so "secure" it's gonna take an act of congress take a piss.</p></div><p>Boy, that's gonna really suck for the people whose political party of choice happens to be out of power at the time they need to go.....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pretty soon we 're gon na be so " secure " it 's gon na take an act of congress take a piss.Boy , that 's gon na really suck for the people whose political party of choice happens to be out of power at the time they need to go..... ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pretty soon we're gonna be so "secure" it's gonna take an act of congress take a piss.Boy, that's gonna really suck for the people whose political party of choice happens to be out of power at the time they need to go..... ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517432</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519704</id>
	<title>Re:Filtering easier?</title>
	<author>RobertM1968</author>
	<datestamp>1261410060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In addition to that, as many people seem to erroneously use the term, this makes them an OSP, and not an ISP.

</p><p>That aside, virtually every ISP and OSP has an ISP they "report to" - thus this should in no way make shutting one of these company's/criminal's/site's internet access down any more difficult than in the past. Basically, unless you are a backbone owner, you're paying for a connection to the Internet via someone else and having lines installed by someone else.

</p><p>In addition, I'd suspect it makes it <b>easier</b> to get them disconnected as they cannot claim (in the US) safe harbor if they are knowingly and/or through actions of their own; placing such botnets online on "their" network. The provisions of the law here are to protect those ISPs and OSPs who get snared in the actions of end-users (not their own malicious actions), only if and when they take appropriate actions to deal with it (those actions dependent on the infraction type... for instance, for copyright infringement, following the rules in the DMCA). In this case, they are causing two strikes to be against them from the get-go...

</p><p>I'd surmise, that unless a botnet operator buys a big chunk of the Internet "backbone" that the Internet cannot survive without, that regardless of the number of IPs they own, following standard procedures against their ISP will result in the same ends as before. And I would further surmise that even if they did buy a big fat pipe, this would also make it easier to block them at peering points (which in some cases, if done drastically, would help convince their upstream provider to disconnect them even faster than the paperwork and complaints filed).

</p><p>But that's just my guess... from I dunno... years in the business, including working for UUNet before they got entangled in the MCI-Worldcom debacle (you know, back in the day when besides running the 2nd largest (behind IBM) and then largest part of the backbone, they were actually the real provider for the majority of MSN's and AOL's networking and end user connections. So... as I said, it's just a guess... the Internet landscape has changed a lot from those days of antiquity... but I suspect my guess is pretty close to the true reality of the situation, thus meaning this article on threatpost is massively (and incorrectly) overstating the significance of this.

</p><p>Then again, I haven't RTFA, so I am only going by a summary - even though my experience on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. has shown that's a bad idea... (but it is more fun having conversations about things that way).<nobr> <wbr></nobr><b>;-)</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to that , as many people seem to erroneously use the term , this makes them an OSP , and not an ISP .
That aside , virtually every ISP and OSP has an ISP they " report to " - thus this should in no way make shutting one of these company 's/criminal 's/site 's internet access down any more difficult than in the past .
Basically , unless you are a backbone owner , you 're paying for a connection to the Internet via someone else and having lines installed by someone else .
In addition , I 'd suspect it makes it easier to get them disconnected as they can not claim ( in the US ) safe harbor if they are knowingly and/or through actions of their own ; placing such botnets online on " their " network .
The provisions of the law here are to protect those ISPs and OSPs who get snared in the actions of end-users ( not their own malicious actions ) , only if and when they take appropriate actions to deal with it ( those actions dependent on the infraction type... for instance , for copyright infringement , following the rules in the DMCA ) .
In this case , they are causing two strikes to be against them from the get-go.. . I 'd surmise , that unless a botnet operator buys a big chunk of the Internet " backbone " that the Internet can not survive without , that regardless of the number of IPs they own , following standard procedures against their ISP will result in the same ends as before .
And I would further surmise that even if they did buy a big fat pipe , this would also make it easier to block them at peering points ( which in some cases , if done drastically , would help convince their upstream provider to disconnect them even faster than the paperwork and complaints filed ) .
But that 's just my guess... from I dunno... years in the business , including working for UUNet before they got entangled in the MCI-Worldcom debacle ( you know , back in the day when besides running the 2nd largest ( behind IBM ) and then largest part of the backbone , they were actually the real provider for the majority of MSN 's and AOL 's networking and end user connections .
So... as I said , it 's just a guess... the Internet landscape has changed a lot from those days of antiquity... but I suspect my guess is pretty close to the true reality of the situation , thus meaning this article on threatpost is massively ( and incorrectly ) overstating the significance of this .
Then again , I have n't RTFA , so I am only going by a summary - even though my experience on / .
has shown that 's a bad idea... ( but it is more fun having conversations about things that way ) .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to that, as many people seem to erroneously use the term, this makes them an OSP, and not an ISP.
That aside, virtually every ISP and OSP has an ISP they "report to" - thus this should in no way make shutting one of these company's/criminal's/site's internet access down any more difficult than in the past.
Basically, unless you are a backbone owner, you're paying for a connection to the Internet via someone else and having lines installed by someone else.
In addition, I'd suspect it makes it easier to get them disconnected as they cannot claim (in the US) safe harbor if they are knowingly and/or through actions of their own; placing such botnets online on "their" network.
The provisions of the law here are to protect those ISPs and OSPs who get snared in the actions of end-users (not their own malicious actions), only if and when they take appropriate actions to deal with it (those actions dependent on the infraction type... for instance, for copyright infringement, following the rules in the DMCA).
In this case, they are causing two strikes to be against them from the get-go...

I'd surmise, that unless a botnet operator buys a big chunk of the Internet "backbone" that the Internet cannot survive without, that regardless of the number of IPs they own, following standard procedures against their ISP will result in the same ends as before.
And I would further surmise that even if they did buy a big fat pipe, this would also make it easier to block them at peering points (which in some cases, if done drastically, would help convince their upstream provider to disconnect them even faster than the paperwork and complaints filed).
But that's just my guess... from I dunno... years in the business, including working for UUNet before they got entangled in the MCI-Worldcom debacle (you know, back in the day when besides running the 2nd largest (behind IBM) and then largest part of the backbone, they were actually the real provider for the majority of MSN's and AOL's networking and end user connections.
So... as I said, it's just a guess... the Internet landscape has changed a lot from those days of antiquity... but I suspect my guess is pretty close to the true reality of the situation, thus meaning this article on threatpost is massively (and incorrectly) overstating the significance of this.
Then again, I haven't RTFA, so I am only going by a summary - even though my experience on /.
has shown that's a bad idea... (but it is more fun having conversations about things that way).
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517900</id>
	<title>Re:Is the address space for something else?</title>
	<author>Corporate Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1261395900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We all know that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net domains not only are not restricted to sales to people/companies/organizations in the US, they aren't even restricted to being sold by companies in the US.</p></div></blockquote><p>I know I might be nitpicky here, but why do you <i>feel</i> that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net (and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.biz,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.name,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.info and a plethora others) should only be restricted to the US?  So Medecin Sans Fronti&egrave;res has no right to a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org in your world because it's French?  Heck SAP couldn't get a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com because it's German!  I'm just wondering.  The ones you cited are international.  You might have a point regarding<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.us domains.  I know that in my country you only get a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.lu when you live there and/or have a company there.  Might have changed by now...  </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We all know that .com , .org , .net domains not only are not restricted to sales to people/companies/organizations in the US , they are n't even restricted to being sold by companies in the US.I know I might be nitpicky here , but why do you feel that .com , .org , .net ( and .biz , .name , .info and a plethora others ) should only be restricted to the US ?
So Medecin Sans Fronti   res has no right to a .org in your world because it 's French ?
Heck SAP could n't get a .com because it 's German !
I 'm just wondering .
The ones you cited are international .
You might have a point regarding .us domains .
I know that in my country you only get a .lu when you live there and/or have a company there .
Might have changed by now.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We all know that .com, .org, .net domains not only are not restricted to sales to people/companies/organizations in the US, they aren't even restricted to being sold by companies in the US.I know I might be nitpicky here, but why do you feel that .com, .org, .net (and .biz, .name, .info and a plethora others) should only be restricted to the US?
So Medecin Sans Frontières has no right to a .org in your world because it's French?
Heck SAP couldn't get a .com because it's German!
I'm just wondering.
The ones you cited are international.
You might have a point regarding .us domains.
I know that in my country you only get a .lu when you live there and/or have a company there.
Might have changed by now...  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517662</id>
	<title>Deal with them all the time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261394400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I manage the network for a medium sized data center, and I see bogus requests for large blocks of IP addresses all the time. We require a justification letter, that acts more as a clue gathering form to help us weed out the illegitimate requests. All it takes is a few minutes of research to determine if the request is legitimate or not; in fact, it is usually immediately obvious that it's a fake. It's sad that other data centers do not do the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I manage the network for a medium sized data center , and I see bogus requests for large blocks of IP addresses all the time .
We require a justification letter , that acts more as a clue gathering form to help us weed out the illegitimate requests .
All it takes is a few minutes of research to determine if the request is legitimate or not ; in fact , it is usually immediately obvious that it 's a fake .
It 's sad that other data centers do not do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I manage the network for a medium sized data center, and I see bogus requests for large blocks of IP addresses all the time.
We require a justification letter, that acts more as a clue gathering form to help us weed out the illegitimate requests.
All it takes is a few minutes of research to determine if the request is legitimate or not; in fact, it is usually immediately obvious that it's a fake.
It's sad that other data centers do not do the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517608</id>
	<title>Re:Friends don't let friends surf the web in IE</title>
	<author>DomNF15</author>
	<datestamp>1261393980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the spirit of discussing FOSS, Linux (I believe, but could be wrong), is still missing support for a bunch of consumer devices, like iPods/iPhones, and digital cameras, etc.  And there are a lot of niche apps that just don't work.  Let's say I use Solidworks for CAD/CAM drawings, I don't think that will run natively on Linux.  That is why a lot of people are not so keen to jump on that bandwagon.  Mind you, I happen to run various Windows/Linux distros at home (and every box has Firefox as the default browser)...each has their role/strengths/weaknesses.  If the problem is stupid users, then fix stupid users, don't just switch software and expect the problem to go away completely, chances are it will come back to bite you, eventually.  I understand that requires more effort, but it's probably more effective in the long run.  Or would you rather put a piece of tape over the blinking clock on your VCR?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the spirit of discussing FOSS , Linux ( I believe , but could be wrong ) , is still missing support for a bunch of consumer devices , like iPods/iPhones , and digital cameras , etc .
And there are a lot of niche apps that just do n't work .
Let 's say I use Solidworks for CAD/CAM drawings , I do n't think that will run natively on Linux .
That is why a lot of people are not so keen to jump on that bandwagon .
Mind you , I happen to run various Windows/Linux distros at home ( and every box has Firefox as the default browser ) ...each has their role/strengths/weaknesses .
If the problem is stupid users , then fix stupid users , do n't just switch software and expect the problem to go away completely , chances are it will come back to bite you , eventually .
I understand that requires more effort , but it 's probably more effective in the long run .
Or would you rather put a piece of tape over the blinking clock on your VCR ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the spirit of discussing FOSS, Linux (I believe, but could be wrong), is still missing support for a bunch of consumer devices, like iPods/iPhones, and digital cameras, etc.
And there are a lot of niche apps that just don't work.
Let's say I use Solidworks for CAD/CAM drawings, I don't think that will run natively on Linux.
That is why a lot of people are not so keen to jump on that bandwagon.
Mind you, I happen to run various Windows/Linux distros at home (and every box has Firefox as the default browser)...each has their role/strengths/weaknesses.
If the problem is stupid users, then fix stupid users, don't just switch software and expect the problem to go away completely, chances are it will come back to bite you, eventually.
I understand that requires more effort, but it's probably more effective in the long run.
Or would you rather put a piece of tape over the blinking clock on your VCR?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517460</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517526</id>
	<title>Re:Easier to block?</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1261393560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>In TFA it mentions that it starts to become spaghetti. As ISP get smart and start blocking that address block the criminal moves on to other things. The lease expires on the block and it is issued to a legit company and then problems happen because the blacklists are not updated by the ISPs. IPv4 also is a very limited size so you can't just rotate around the blocks you issue every 100 or so years (conservatively) and avoid this issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In TFA it mentions that it starts to become spaghetti .
As ISP get smart and start blocking that address block the criminal moves on to other things .
The lease expires on the block and it is issued to a legit company and then problems happen because the blacklists are not updated by the ISPs .
IPv4 also is a very limited size so you ca n't just rotate around the blocks you issue every 100 or so years ( conservatively ) and avoid this issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In TFA it mentions that it starts to become spaghetti.
As ISP get smart and start blocking that address block the criminal moves on to other things.
The lease expires on the block and it is issued to a legit company and then problems happen because the blacklists are not updated by the ISPs.
IPv4 also is a very limited size so you can't just rotate around the blocks you issue every 100 or so years (conservatively) and avoid this issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517630</id>
	<title>Re:Easier to block?</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1261394160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>and also if they have had to build a dc buy srvers rent space this all leaves a paper trail to them</htmltext>
<tokenext>and also if they have had to build a dc buy srvers rent space this all leaves a paper trail to them</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and also if they have had to build a dc buy srvers rent space this all leaves a paper trail to them</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518284</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this cool?</title>
	<author>JohnyDog</author>
	<datestamp>1261398480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Remember back in the 90s when everyone was jizzing in their pants about Bruce Sterling and Neal Stephenson's writing, dreaming of actually implementing the ideas therein? Data havens, crypto-anarchism, impregnable anonymity, hackers making a decent living by a life of crime, and so forth?<br>Well, now the future is here. Kind of sucks, doesn't it? Careful what you wish for, you just might get it.</i></p><p>In those cyberpunk visions the world, political and judicals systems are tightly controlled by corrupt mega-corporations and the net is anything but open. The very act of accessing the network or tampering with it may land you in prison, criticizing the rulers means you're dead and so on. Every piece of hardware is registered, so if you want to get any hacking done you have to turn in to black market (for stuff) and criminals (to get money for stuff), out of pure necessity. (it's the classical tale of occupied country's resistance movement working together with organized crime, right?)</p><p>Compare that to the reality we got: cheap ubiquitous internet, cheap ubiquitous hardware to access it, the net is *by default* free and open, and all attempts to any large-scale censoring has failed miserably. Anonymity is just one unsecured wifi hotspot away on every corner (so you don't need to pay a hacker to get you online), and any attempts at uncovering corruption and truth are met with public support. So the traditional heroes of cyberpunk stories can operate publicly or semi-publicly (think wikileaks), the worst that can happen to them is someone pulling the DMCA on the copied/leaked documents, which rarely results even in fines, much less prison time. The hackers are working on cool engineering projects instead of breaking into companies networks, and the criminals are, well, criminals - since they are no longer needed for the goals of the freedom fighters, all they do is disrupt the free information exchange (ddosing sites for greed, decreasing signal-to-noise ratio by spamming the hell out of everyone etc.), and so are frowned upon even by the neo-anarchists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember back in the 90s when everyone was jizzing in their pants about Bruce Sterling and Neal Stephenson 's writing , dreaming of actually implementing the ideas therein ?
Data havens , crypto-anarchism , impregnable anonymity , hackers making a decent living by a life of crime , and so forth ? Well , now the future is here .
Kind of sucks , does n't it ?
Careful what you wish for , you just might get it.In those cyberpunk visions the world , political and judicals systems are tightly controlled by corrupt mega-corporations and the net is anything but open .
The very act of accessing the network or tampering with it may land you in prison , criticizing the rulers means you 're dead and so on .
Every piece of hardware is registered , so if you want to get any hacking done you have to turn in to black market ( for stuff ) and criminals ( to get money for stuff ) , out of pure necessity .
( it 's the classical tale of occupied country 's resistance movement working together with organized crime , right ?
) Compare that to the reality we got : cheap ubiquitous internet , cheap ubiquitous hardware to access it , the net is * by default * free and open , and all attempts to any large-scale censoring has failed miserably .
Anonymity is just one unsecured wifi hotspot away on every corner ( so you do n't need to pay a hacker to get you online ) , and any attempts at uncovering corruption and truth are met with public support .
So the traditional heroes of cyberpunk stories can operate publicly or semi-publicly ( think wikileaks ) , the worst that can happen to them is someone pulling the DMCA on the copied/leaked documents , which rarely results even in fines , much less prison time .
The hackers are working on cool engineering projects instead of breaking into companies networks , and the criminals are , well , criminals - since they are no longer needed for the goals of the freedom fighters , all they do is disrupt the free information exchange ( ddosing sites for greed , decreasing signal-to-noise ratio by spamming the hell out of everyone etc .
) , and so are frowned upon even by the neo-anarchists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember back in the 90s when everyone was jizzing in their pants about Bruce Sterling and Neal Stephenson's writing, dreaming of actually implementing the ideas therein?
Data havens, crypto-anarchism, impregnable anonymity, hackers making a decent living by a life of crime, and so forth?Well, now the future is here.
Kind of sucks, doesn't it?
Careful what you wish for, you just might get it.In those cyberpunk visions the world, political and judicals systems are tightly controlled by corrupt mega-corporations and the net is anything but open.
The very act of accessing the network or tampering with it may land you in prison, criticizing the rulers means you're dead and so on.
Every piece of hardware is registered, so if you want to get any hacking done you have to turn in to black market (for stuff) and criminals (to get money for stuff), out of pure necessity.
(it's the classical tale of occupied country's resistance movement working together with organized crime, right?
)Compare that to the reality we got: cheap ubiquitous internet, cheap ubiquitous hardware to access it, the net is *by default* free and open, and all attempts to any large-scale censoring has failed miserably.
Anonymity is just one unsecured wifi hotspot away on every corner (so you don't need to pay a hacker to get you online), and any attempts at uncovering corruption and truth are met with public support.
So the traditional heroes of cyberpunk stories can operate publicly or semi-publicly (think wikileaks), the worst that can happen to them is someone pulling the DMCA on the copied/leaked documents, which rarely results even in fines, much less prison time.
The hackers are working on cool engineering projects instead of breaking into companies networks, and the criminals are, well, criminals - since they are no longer needed for the goals of the freedom fighters, all they do is disrupt the free information exchange (ddosing sites for greed, decreasing signal-to-noise ratio by spamming the hell out of everyone etc.
), and so are frowned upon even by the neo-anarchists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517474</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30521736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30525248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30520028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30522282
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30521722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30522556
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30520532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519716
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30522962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517404
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30522542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30530958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30526368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_1922215_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1922215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30522962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1922215.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30521736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518498
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30520532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30530958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1922215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519560
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1922215.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518552
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1922215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517736
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30521722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1922215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30520028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30525248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1922215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1922215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517742
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1922215.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1922215.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1922215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517900
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30519654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30522542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1922215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1922215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30518284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30522556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30526368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1922215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1922215.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30522282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_1922215.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_1922215.30517838
</commentlist>
</conversation>
