<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_02_0247236</id>
	<title>Using Fourth-Party Data Brokers To Bypass the Fourth Amendment</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1262448420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>An anonymous reader writes <i>"Coming out of Columbia Law School is an article about commercial data brokers and their ability to provide information about individuals to the US government <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=1475524">despite Fourth Amendment or statutory protections</a> (abstract, full PDF at Download link). Quoting: 'The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment does not protect information that has been voluntarily disclosed to a third-party or obtained by means of a private search.  Congress reacted to these holdings by creating a patchwork of statutes designed to prevent the government's direct and unfettered access to documents stored with third-parties; thus, the government's access is fettered by various statutory requirements, including, in many cases, notice of the disclosure.  Despite these protections, however, third-parties are not restricted from passing the same data to other private companies (fourth-parties), and after the events of September 11, 2001, the government, believing that it needed a greater scope of surveillance, turned to the fourth-parties to access the personal information it could not acquire on its own.  As a consequence, the fourth-parties, unrestricted by Fourth Amendment or statutory concerns, delivered &mdash; and continue to deliver &mdash; personal data  <em>en masse</em> to the government.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>An anonymous reader writes " Coming out of Columbia Law School is an article about commercial data brokers and their ability to provide information about individuals to the US government despite Fourth Amendment or statutory protections ( abstract , full PDF at Download link ) .
Quoting : 'The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment does not protect information that has been voluntarily disclosed to a third-party or obtained by means of a private search .
Congress reacted to these holdings by creating a patchwork of statutes designed to prevent the government 's direct and unfettered access to documents stored with third-parties ; thus , the government 's access is fettered by various statutory requirements , including , in many cases , notice of the disclosure .
Despite these protections , however , third-parties are not restricted from passing the same data to other private companies ( fourth-parties ) , and after the events of September 11 , 2001 , the government , believing that it needed a greater scope of surveillance , turned to the fourth-parties to access the personal information it could not acquire on its own .
As a consequence , the fourth-parties , unrestricted by Fourth Amendment or statutory concerns , delivered    and continue to deliver    personal data en masse to the government .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An anonymous reader writes "Coming out of Columbia Law School is an article about commercial data brokers and their ability to provide information about individuals to the US government despite Fourth Amendment or statutory protections (abstract, full PDF at Download link).
Quoting: 'The Supreme Court has held that the Fourth Amendment does not protect information that has been voluntarily disclosed to a third-party or obtained by means of a private search.
Congress reacted to these holdings by creating a patchwork of statutes designed to prevent the government's direct and unfettered access to documents stored with third-parties; thus, the government's access is fettered by various statutory requirements, including, in many cases, notice of the disclosure.
Despite these protections, however, third-parties are not restricted from passing the same data to other private companies (fourth-parties), and after the events of September 11, 2001, the government, believing that it needed a greater scope of surveillance, turned to the fourth-parties to access the personal information it could not acquire on its own.
As a consequence, the fourth-parties, unrestricted by Fourth Amendment or statutory concerns, delivered — and continue to deliver — personal data  en masse to the government.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619440</id>
	<title>Sharing vs taking.</title>
	<author>khasim</author>
	<datestamp>1262366760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why does the US have this fetish with keeping the government out of their private lives, yet allow corporations free reign to use, misuse, misplace and basically be asses with the same information?</p></div></blockquote><p>At the most basic, it is a difference between voluntarily sharing the information versus involuntarily having it collected.</p><p>Corporations compile the information about your purchases and such in order to persuade you to purchase their products.</p><p>Governments compile the information about you in order to limit your freedom.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does the US have this fetish with keeping the government out of their private lives , yet allow corporations free reign to use , misuse , misplace and basically be asses with the same information ? At the most basic , it is a difference between voluntarily sharing the information versus involuntarily having it collected.Corporations compile the information about your purchases and such in order to persuade you to purchase their products.Governments compile the information about you in order to limit your freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does the US have this fetish with keeping the government out of their private lives, yet allow corporations free reign to use, misuse, misplace and basically be asses with the same information?At the most basic, it is a difference between voluntarily sharing the information versus involuntarily having it collected.Corporations compile the information about your purchases and such in order to persuade you to purchase their products.Governments compile the information about you in order to limit your freedom.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620854</id>
	<title>Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1262428860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The USA doesn't really have privacy laws.  Canada and a few other countries do.  That is why it is always an argument in the USA - their laws are weak on privacy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The USA does n't really have privacy laws .
Canada and a few other countries do .
That is why it is always an argument in the USA - their laws are weak on privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The USA doesn't really have privacy laws.
Canada and a few other countries do.
That is why it is always an argument in the USA - their laws are weak on privacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619576</id>
	<title>Where does the buck stop?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262368620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the government controls how private corporations/individuals are allowed to act, and if the Constitution controls how the government is allowed to act, why then isn't the Constitution powerful enough to control the private corporations, too?  What good are Constitutional protections if factions within the government can merely "offshore" the work to make an end run around these very protections?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the government controls how private corporations/individuals are allowed to act , and if the Constitution controls how the government is allowed to act , why then is n't the Constitution powerful enough to control the private corporations , too ?
What good are Constitutional protections if factions within the government can merely " offshore " the work to make an end run around these very protections ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the government controls how private corporations/individuals are allowed to act, and if the Constitution controls how the government is allowed to act, why then isn't the Constitution powerful enough to control the private corporations, too?
What good are Constitutional protections if factions within the government can merely "offshore" the work to make an end run around these very protections?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619552</id>
	<title>Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1262368080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Corporations  write laws in the US.  If a left leaning type starts getting ideas, his or her 'aid' will pull them back in line as they worked for or want to work for the area their boss is to be watching, regulating.<br>Do you expect to get a great job if your boss was screaming about public health care, land mines, lead, mercenaries having fun with children, drugs and the CIA, water quality ect.<br>  All that is taboo in the USA.<br>
If the advisor fails, the left or right swaps out the right or left with a more corporation friendly person and team.<br>
A man or woman who knows who pays for their lifestyle, elections and a few naughty extras.<br>If its a mess and mid term, just blackmail or force a recall.  Fox will get the "left" trouble maker, the liberal blogosphere the right.<br>If they are clean, work on the family tree or get someone close to them to make them fail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Corporations write laws in the US .
If a left leaning type starts getting ideas , his or her 'aid ' will pull them back in line as they worked for or want to work for the area their boss is to be watching , regulating.Do you expect to get a great job if your boss was screaming about public health care , land mines , lead , mercenaries having fun with children , drugs and the CIA , water quality ect .
All that is taboo in the USA .
If the advisor fails , the left or right swaps out the right or left with a more corporation friendly person and team .
A man or woman who knows who pays for their lifestyle , elections and a few naughty extras.If its a mess and mid term , just blackmail or force a recall .
Fox will get the " left " trouble maker , the liberal blogosphere the right.If they are clean , work on the family tree or get someone close to them to make them fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Corporations  write laws in the US.
If a left leaning type starts getting ideas, his or her 'aid' will pull them back in line as they worked for or want to work for the area their boss is to be watching, regulating.Do you expect to get a great job if your boss was screaming about public health care, land mines, lead, mercenaries having fun with children, drugs and the CIA, water quality ect.
All that is taboo in the USA.
If the advisor fails, the left or right swaps out the right or left with a more corporation friendly person and team.
A man or woman who knows who pays for their lifestyle, elections and a few naughty extras.If its a mess and mid term, just blackmail or force a recall.
Fox will get the "left" trouble maker, the liberal blogosphere the right.If they are clean, work on the family tree or get someone close to them to make them fail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619640</id>
	<title>The sad truith:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262369340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Goodby, America.  You will be missed by those who loved you.  I, for one, welcome the new world order, our new overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Goodby , America .
You will be missed by those who loved you .
I , for one , welcome the new world order , our new overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Goodby, America.
You will be missed by those who loved you.
I, for one, welcome the new world order, our new overlords.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619366</id>
	<title>We're doing it to ourselves</title>
	<author>inKubus</author>
	<datestamp>1262365860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's our government, and if it's screwing us it's basically us screwing ourselves.</p><p>Non-sequitur and off-topic, has there ever been a media anti-trust action in history?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's our government , and if it 's screwing us it 's basically us screwing ourselves.Non-sequitur and off-topic , has there ever been a media anti-trust action in history ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's our government, and if it's screwing us it's basically us screwing ourselves.Non-sequitur and off-topic, has there ever been a media anti-trust action in history?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620144</id>
	<title>Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio</title>
	<author>Bob\_Who</author>
	<datestamp>1262375460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good point.  The issue should be that corporations should not have more rights than our government or its citizens.  Then again, shareholders and their lobbyists are not necessarily American.  Maybe this is how unemployment can go up to 10\% in the same year that the stock market gains 20\% . Corporate interests no longer serve the citizens, perhaps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good point .
The issue should be that corporations should not have more rights than our government or its citizens .
Then again , shareholders and their lobbyists are not necessarily American .
Maybe this is how unemployment can go up to 10 \ % in the same year that the stock market gains 20 \ % .
Corporate interests no longer serve the citizens , perhaps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good point.
The issue should be that corporations should not have more rights than our government or its citizens.
Then again, shareholders and their lobbyists are not necessarily American.
Maybe this is how unemployment can go up to 10\% in the same year that the stock market gains 20\% .
Corporate interests no longer serve the citizens, perhaps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619342</id>
	<title>Bend over citizen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262365680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Loopholes. Always loopholes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Loopholes .
Always loopholes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Loopholes.
Always loopholes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30621528</id>
	<title>Norway publishes all tax returns online</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262439780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why does the US have this fetish with keeping the government out of their private lives, yet allow corporations free reign to use, misuse, misplace and basically be asses with the same information?</p></div><p>That 'fetish' was enshrined in our Bill Of Rights 219 years ago.</p><p>Without this 'fetish' of ours things like <a href="http://info-a.wikidot.com/norways-publishes-all-tax-returns-on-line" title="wikidot.com" rel="nofollow">this</a> [wikidot.com] might happen.  Gimme your name and I'll tell Slashdot what you made last year.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>As a rule Islamic governance avoids interfering with markets and has recognized a right to privacy for 1400 years, so Norway is in for some changes.  Your nation will be 20\% Muslim inside the next decade; will Norwegians be so belligerent as to deny Sharia Law for even that long?  Given Norway's record of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust\_in\_Norway#Confiscation\_and\_arrests" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">rolling over</a> [wikipedia.org] for conquerors I have to doubt it.</p><p>Good luck with that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does the US have this fetish with keeping the government out of their private lives , yet allow corporations free reign to use , misuse , misplace and basically be asses with the same information ? That 'fetish ' was enshrined in our Bill Of Rights 219 years ago.Without this 'fetish ' of ours things like this [ wikidot.com ] might happen .
Gim me your name and I 'll tell Slashdot what you made last year .
: ) As a rule Islamic governance avoids interfering with markets and has recognized a right to privacy for 1400 years , so Norway is in for some changes .
Your nation will be 20 \ % Muslim inside the next decade ; will Norwegians be so belligerent as to deny Sharia Law for even that long ?
Given Norway 's record of rolling over [ wikipedia.org ] for conquerors I have to doubt it.Good luck with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does the US have this fetish with keeping the government out of their private lives, yet allow corporations free reign to use, misuse, misplace and basically be asses with the same information?That 'fetish' was enshrined in our Bill Of Rights 219 years ago.Without this 'fetish' of ours things like this [wikidot.com] might happen.
Gimme your name and I'll tell Slashdot what you made last year.
:)As a rule Islamic governance avoids interfering with markets and has recognized a right to privacy for 1400 years, so Norway is in for some changes.
Your nation will be 20\% Muslim inside the next decade; will Norwegians be so belligerent as to deny Sharia Law for even that long?
Given Norway's record of rolling over [wikipedia.org] for conquerors I have to doubt it.Good luck with that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619462</id>
	<title>Also....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262367060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think thanks to the PATRIOT act they have carte blanche over any international communication... so if they have your ISP reroute your Internet call/email/IMs through Canada, all's fair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think thanks to the PATRIOT act they have carte blanche over any international communication... so if they have your ISP reroute your Internet call/email/IMs through Canada , all 's fair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think thanks to the PATRIOT act they have carte blanche over any international communication... so if they have your ISP reroute your Internet call/email/IMs through Canada, all's fair.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620058</id>
	<title>Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio</title>
	<author>Mr. Slippery</author>
	<datestamp>1262374200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Because corporations cannot use (misuse) said information to jail people.</p></div></blockquote><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry\_Sklyarov" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Dmitry Sklyarov might disagree</a> [wikipedia.org].

</p><p>The government is, effectively, the enforcement arm for corporate power (and all other sorts of private power).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because corporations can not use ( misuse ) said information to jail people .
Dmitry Sklyarov might disagree [ wikipedia.org ] .
The government is , effectively , the enforcement arm for corporate power ( and all other sorts of private power ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because corporations cannot use (misuse) said information to jail people.
Dmitry Sklyarov might disagree [wikipedia.org].
The government is, effectively, the enforcement arm for corporate power (and all other sorts of private power).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619972</id>
	<title>Re:Sharing vs taking.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262373300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In a state of nature</i>...</p><p>It has something to do with figuring out how many representatives your area should have in government, <b>because you give up your freedom to make your own laws to him.</b></p><p>It has something to do with figuring out how many police officers, firefighters, and paramedics your area needs in order to provide sufficient coverage, <b>because you give up your freedom to kill the man who raped your daughter, burn down your old house, and have that cancer looked at by the spiritual surgeon.</b></p><p>It has something to do with figuring out if the school you went to is providing a good education <b>because you're giving up your freedom to not have your child educated in a manner that is not agreed upon by your representatives.</b></p><p>It has something to do with figuring out if you are owed veteran benefits if you were in the military and deployed <b>because you're giving someone else the right to protect yourself from all enemies, foreign and domestic</b></p><p>It has something to do with making sure that the various utilities are sufficient for your area, so that you don't have blackouts all the time, <b>because you give up your right to your own land.</b></p><p>It has to do with things that could possibly be good. The only reason the government could possibly have for compiling information about you is because it wants to limit your freedom, <b>because that really is the only purpose of government.</b></p><p>What the original poster didn't say, is that life without governance kind of sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a state of nature...It has something to do with figuring out how many representatives your area should have in government , because you give up your freedom to make your own laws to him.It has something to do with figuring out how many police officers , firefighters , and paramedics your area needs in order to provide sufficient coverage , because you give up your freedom to kill the man who raped your daughter , burn down your old house , and have that cancer looked at by the spiritual surgeon.It has something to do with figuring out if the school you went to is providing a good education because you 're giving up your freedom to not have your child educated in a manner that is not agreed upon by your representatives.It has something to do with figuring out if you are owed veteran benefits if you were in the military and deployed because you 're giving someone else the right to protect yourself from all enemies , foreign and domesticIt has something to do with making sure that the various utilities are sufficient for your area , so that you do n't have blackouts all the time , because you give up your right to your own land.It has to do with things that could possibly be good .
The only reason the government could possibly have for compiling information about you is because it wants to limit your freedom , because that really is the only purpose of government.What the original poster did n't say , is that life without governance kind of sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a state of nature...It has something to do with figuring out how many representatives your area should have in government, because you give up your freedom to make your own laws to him.It has something to do with figuring out how many police officers, firefighters, and paramedics your area needs in order to provide sufficient coverage, because you give up your freedom to kill the man who raped your daughter, burn down your old house, and have that cancer looked at by the spiritual surgeon.It has something to do with figuring out if the school you went to is providing a good education because you're giving up your freedom to not have your child educated in a manner that is not agreed upon by your representatives.It has something to do with figuring out if you are owed veteran benefits if you were in the military and deployed because you're giving someone else the right to protect yourself from all enemies, foreign and domesticIt has something to do with making sure that the various utilities are sufficient for your area, so that you don't have blackouts all the time, because you give up your right to your own land.It has to do with things that could possibly be good.
The only reason the government could possibly have for compiling information about you is because it wants to limit your freedom, because that really is the only purpose of government.What the original poster didn't say, is that life without governance kind of sucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30635234</id>
	<title>Re:Bend over citizen</title>
	<author>amoeba1911</author>
	<datestamp>1262520480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
First: Me, as in First Person Shooter<br>
Second: You, as in a Second Person Narrative<br>
Third: He/She, where the person is neither You nor Me, it's a third party.<br>
Fourth: there is no such thing because Third already encompasses everything that is not First or Second.
</p><p>
There's <b>me</b> (the one who wrote this), <b>you</b> (the one reading this), and <b>them</b>(anyone who is not me or you). You can't just invent a new name for <b>them</b> and pretend you're not referring to them when you say it's them, it's still them.
</p><p>
I find this play on words to be incomprehensibly stupid.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First : Me , as in First Person Shooter Second : You , as in a Second Person Narrative Third : He/She , where the person is neither You nor Me , it 's a third party .
Fourth : there is no such thing because Third already encompasses everything that is not First or Second .
There 's me ( the one who wrote this ) , you ( the one reading this ) , and them ( anyone who is not me or you ) .
You ca n't just invent a new name for them and pretend you 're not referring to them when you say it 's them , it 's still them .
I find this play on words to be incomprehensibly stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
First: Me, as in First Person Shooter
Second: You, as in a Second Person Narrative
Third: He/She, where the person is neither You nor Me, it's a third party.
Fourth: there is no such thing because Third already encompasses everything that is not First or Second.
There's me (the one who wrote this), you (the one reading this), and them(anyone who is not me or you).
You can't just invent a new name for them and pretend you're not referring to them when you say it's them, it's still them.
I find this play on words to be incomprehensibly stupid.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620236</id>
	<title>Re:Sharing vs taking.</title>
	<author>jlarocco</author>
	<datestamp>1262463360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
None of the things on your list require any kind of private information that wouldn't already be available in the government's own records.
</p><p>
In the context of the 4th amendment, gathering information about individuals is very much tied to limiting freedom, because the implication is that the information will be used to prosecute and/or punish them.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None of the things on your list require any kind of private information that would n't already be available in the government 's own records .
In the context of the 4th amendment , gathering information about individuals is very much tied to limiting freedom , because the implication is that the information will be used to prosecute and/or punish them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
None of the things on your list require any kind of private information that wouldn't already be available in the government's own records.
In the context of the 4th amendment, gathering information about individuals is very much tied to limiting freedom, because the implication is that the information will be used to prosecute and/or punish them.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619672</id>
	<title>i just got off the toilet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262369640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i shit out an obama.<br> <br>PLOP!</htmltext>
<tokenext>i shit out an obama .
PLOP !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i shit out an obama.
PLOP!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620034</id>
	<title>Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio</title>
	<author>zippyspringboard</author>
	<datestamp>1262373960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here in the USA most of us have been duped into thinking that the Government and Large corporations are at odds with each other.  Instead of realizing that each represent a consolidation of power, and pose similar threats (and more often than not work together).   We spend so much time divided and arguing about who represents "evil" ( the Govt or the Corporations) that they both pretty much get to do whatever the hell they want.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in the USA most of us have been duped into thinking that the Government and Large corporations are at odds with each other .
Instead of realizing that each represent a consolidation of power , and pose similar threats ( and more often than not work together ) .
We spend so much time divided and arguing about who represents " evil " ( the Govt or the Corporations ) that they both pretty much get to do whatever the hell they want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in the USA most of us have been duped into thinking that the Government and Large corporations are at odds with each other.
Instead of realizing that each represent a consolidation of power, and pose similar threats (and more often than not work together).
We spend so much time divided and arguing about who represents "evil" ( the Govt or the Corporations) that they both pretty much get to do whatever the hell they want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30626434</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook exists for a reason.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262429040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's Google that I find myself wondering about; their "Don't Be Evil" thing is so effective that even I have the slogan burned into my mind.</p></div><p>It would be EVIL to prevent the government from protecting it's citizens by restricting access to Google's information.</p><p>See how that works.  The slogan is meaningless.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Google that I find myself wondering about ; their " Do n't Be Evil " thing is so effective that even I have the slogan burned into my mind.It would be EVIL to prevent the government from protecting it 's citizens by restricting access to Google 's information.See how that works .
The slogan is meaningless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Google that I find myself wondering about; their "Don't Be Evil" thing is so effective that even I have the slogan burned into my mind.It would be EVIL to prevent the government from protecting it's citizens by restricting access to Google's information.See how that works.
The slogan is meaningless.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619676</id>
	<title>Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262369700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I personally trust the government far more than I trust corporations.  The government isn't a for-profit organization.  Corporations are.  Therein lies the difference.  I truly wish that the government would regulate corporations far more, especially how corporations manage information on people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I personally trust the government far more than I trust corporations .
The government is n't a for-profit organization .
Corporations are .
Therein lies the difference .
I truly wish that the government would regulate corporations far more , especially how corporations manage information on people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I personally trust the government far more than I trust corporations.
The government isn't a for-profit organization.
Corporations are.
Therein lies the difference.
I truly wish that the government would regulate corporations far more, especially how corporations manage information on people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619652</id>
	<title>rarara</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262369520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we have the constitution!</p><p>*subvert ideals with lawyers</p><p>voters ????</p><p>profit</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we have the constitution !
* subvert ideals with lawyersvoters ? ? ?
? profit</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we have the constitution!
*subvert ideals with lawyersvoters ???
?profit</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619742</id>
	<title>Re:Sharing vs taking.</title>
	<author>AnotherUsername</author>
	<datestamp>1262370420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Governments compile the information about you in order to limit your freedom.</p></div><p>Are you kidding me?  Yes.  The only reason the government exists is to limit your freedom.  That's obviously the only reason that the government has information on you.
<br> <br>
It has nothing to do with figuring out how many representatives your area should have in government.
<br>It has nothing to do with figuring out how many police officers, firefighters, and paramedics your area needs in order to provide sufficient coverage.
<br>It has nothing to do with figuring out if the school you went to is providing a good education.
<br>It has nothing to do with figuring out if you are owed veteran benefits if you were in the military and deployed.
<br>It has nothing to do with making sure that the various utilities are sufficient for your area, so that you don't have blackouts all the time.
<br>It has nothing to do with anything that could possibly be good.  The only reason the government could <i>possibly</i> have for compiling information about you is because it wants to limit your freedom.  Give me a break.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Governments compile the information about you in order to limit your freedom.Are you kidding me ?
Yes. The only reason the government exists is to limit your freedom .
That 's obviously the only reason that the government has information on you .
It has nothing to do with figuring out how many representatives your area should have in government .
It has nothing to do with figuring out how many police officers , firefighters , and paramedics your area needs in order to provide sufficient coverage .
It has nothing to do with figuring out if the school you went to is providing a good education .
It has nothing to do with figuring out if you are owed veteran benefits if you were in the military and deployed .
It has nothing to do with making sure that the various utilities are sufficient for your area , so that you do n't have blackouts all the time .
It has nothing to do with anything that could possibly be good .
The only reason the government could possibly have for compiling information about you is because it wants to limit your freedom .
Give me a break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Governments compile the information about you in order to limit your freedom.Are you kidding me?
Yes.  The only reason the government exists is to limit your freedom.
That's obviously the only reason that the government has information on you.
It has nothing to do with figuring out how many representatives your area should have in government.
It has nothing to do with figuring out how many police officers, firefighters, and paramedics your area needs in order to provide sufficient coverage.
It has nothing to do with figuring out if the school you went to is providing a good education.
It has nothing to do with figuring out if you are owed veteran benefits if you were in the military and deployed.
It has nothing to do with making sure that the various utilities are sufficient for your area, so that you don't have blackouts all the time.
It has nothing to do with anything that could possibly be good.
The only reason the government could possibly have for compiling information about you is because it wants to limit your freedom.
Give me a break.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619554</id>
	<title>Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262368140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you don't understand the way that governments were designed in the US. One of the primary motivations was to restrict the power of the government. The US Constitution is sort of a reverse constitution to most in the world. Instead of saying what rights the people have, it enumerates the powers of the government and leaves all other rights to the people. Thus the First Amendment to the US Constitution doesn't guarantee free speech--it simply prevents the government from interfering.</p><p>This may sound like a trivial distinction, but it isn't. The US Constitution is designed so it is easy to make laws restricting the government, but hard to restrict people or corporations. While it is possible to restrict corporations, it would have to be done through the Commerce Clause. In order to use this clause, the government would have to show that these privacy issues affect international or inter-State trade (where by 'State' I mean individual States within the US). The actual implementation would be done by adopting regulations under the Executive Branch.</p><p>The US isn't Norway, and the US federal government is weak in what changes it can make compared to Norway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you do n't understand the way that governments were designed in the US .
One of the primary motivations was to restrict the power of the government .
The US Constitution is sort of a reverse constitution to most in the world .
Instead of saying what rights the people have , it enumerates the powers of the government and leaves all other rights to the people .
Thus the First Amendment to the US Constitution does n't guarantee free speech--it simply prevents the government from interfering.This may sound like a trivial distinction , but it is n't .
The US Constitution is designed so it is easy to make laws restricting the government , but hard to restrict people or corporations .
While it is possible to restrict corporations , it would have to be done through the Commerce Clause .
In order to use this clause , the government would have to show that these privacy issues affect international or inter-State trade ( where by 'State ' I mean individual States within the US ) .
The actual implementation would be done by adopting regulations under the Executive Branch.The US is n't Norway , and the US federal government is weak in what changes it can make compared to Norway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you don't understand the way that governments were designed in the US.
One of the primary motivations was to restrict the power of the government.
The US Constitution is sort of a reverse constitution to most in the world.
Instead of saying what rights the people have, it enumerates the powers of the government and leaves all other rights to the people.
Thus the First Amendment to the US Constitution doesn't guarantee free speech--it simply prevents the government from interfering.This may sound like a trivial distinction, but it isn't.
The US Constitution is designed so it is easy to make laws restricting the government, but hard to restrict people or corporations.
While it is possible to restrict corporations, it would have to be done through the Commerce Clause.
In order to use this clause, the government would have to show that these privacy issues affect international or inter-State trade (where by 'State' I mean individual States within the US).
The actual implementation would be done by adopting regulations under the Executive Branch.The US isn't Norway, and the US federal government is weak in what changes it can make compared to Norway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619846</id>
	<title>Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1262371500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We're not like that because it is cold in Norway and it would be costly and hard to make the move.</i></p><p><i>Just please don't claim we have WMDs before invading to bring us the Democracy you think we deserve... we know we have em.</i></p><p>Lutefisk \_is\_ considered a biological weapon outside of Norway, you know.</p><p>So, would you like to be the 52nd state (after Canada, of course - they have dibs), or a territory like Puerto Rico? If you choose to become a state, you get free flags. If you choose to be a territory, you get less hassle, but no flags. A difficult choice, I know, so take your time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're not like that because it is cold in Norway and it would be costly and hard to make the move.Just please do n't claim we have WMDs before invading to bring us the Democracy you think we deserve... we know we have em.Lutefisk \ _is \ _ considered a biological weapon outside of Norway , you know.So , would you like to be the 52nd state ( after Canada , of course - they have dibs ) , or a territory like Puerto Rico ?
If you choose to become a state , you get free flags .
If you choose to be a territory , you get less hassle , but no flags .
A difficult choice , I know , so take your time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're not like that because it is cold in Norway and it would be costly and hard to make the move.Just please don't claim we have WMDs before invading to bring us the Democracy you think we deserve... we know we have em.Lutefisk \_is\_ considered a biological weapon outside of Norway, you know.So, would you like to be the 52nd state (after Canada, of course - they have dibs), or a territory like Puerto Rico?
If you choose to become a state, you get free flags.
If you choose to be a territory, you get less hassle, but no flags.
A difficult choice, I know, so take your time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30621750</id>
	<title>Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio</title>
	<author>CrazyDuke</author>
	<datestamp>1262442840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's because we suffer under the delusion that corporations cannot be part of the amorphous entity known as government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's because we suffer under the delusion that corporations can not be part of the amorphous entity known as government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's because we suffer under the delusion that corporations cannot be part of the amorphous entity known as government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620286</id>
	<title>Re:We're doing it to ourselves</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1262463900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's our government, and if it's screwing us it's basically us screwing ourselves.</p></div><p>No, its the monied and powerful screwing those who don't have as loud a say in what the government does.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Non-sequitur and off-topic, has there ever been a media anti-trust action in history?</p></div><p>What do you mean by "action" - federal lawsuit?  There certainly have been plenty of actions - like the creation of laws preventing one company from owning all the television stations in one area.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's our government , and if it 's screwing us it 's basically us screwing ourselves.No , its the monied and powerful screwing those who do n't have as loud a say in what the government does.Non-sequitur and off-topic , has there ever been a media anti-trust action in history ? What do you mean by " action " - federal lawsuit ?
There certainly have been plenty of actions - like the creation of laws preventing one company from owning all the television stations in one area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's our government, and if it's screwing us it's basically us screwing ourselves.No, its the monied and powerful screwing those who don't have as loud a say in what the government does.Non-sequitur and off-topic, has there ever been a media anti-trust action in history?What do you mean by "action" - federal lawsuit?
There certainly have been plenty of actions - like the creation of laws preventing one company from owning all the television stations in one area.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619480</id>
	<title>Pay in cash</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1262367180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>All that 'discount' is really you signing over your life to a set of private databases.<br>
The US gov also buys the same info in bulk.<br>
Then you have the shadow security and marketing sub set that feeds the US gov a stream of top quality filtered info on US suburbia ie You the US slashdot reader.<br>
The terror watch list will never go down and they will milk it for their investors and shareholders for generations.<br>
Lists are just a small part of a huge cash river of your tax $ paying to keep a few 1000 of you safe from.<br>
Note how the deals, tv games and send in for a discount forms all want your email now to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>All that 'discount ' is really you signing over your life to a set of private databases .
The US gov also buys the same info in bulk .
Then you have the shadow security and marketing sub set that feeds the US gov a stream of top quality filtered info on US suburbia ie You the US slashdot reader .
The terror watch list will never go down and they will milk it for their investors and shareholders for generations .
Lists are just a small part of a huge cash river of your tax $ paying to keep a few 1000 of you safe from .
Note how the deals , tv games and send in for a discount forms all want your email now to ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All that 'discount' is really you signing over your life to a set of private databases.
The US gov also buys the same info in bulk.
Then you have the shadow security and marketing sub set that feeds the US gov a stream of top quality filtered info on US suburbia ie You the US slashdot reader.
The terror watch list will never go down and they will milk it for their investors and shareholders for generations.
Lists are just a small part of a huge cash river of your tax $ paying to keep a few 1000 of you safe from.
Note how the deals, tv games and send in for a discount forms all want your email now to ;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620508</id>
	<title>Re:Bend over citizen</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1262423700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Indeed...</p><p>
<b>First Party</b>: The original person the information belongs to.
</p><p>
<b>Second Party</b>: An entity the 1st party directly shared the information with.
</p><p>
<b>Third Party</b>: <b>EVERYONE</b> or anyone else who got the information from any source other than directly from the First party.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed.. . First Party : The original person the information belongs to .
Second Party : An entity the 1st party directly shared the information with .
Third Party : EVERYONE or anyone else who got the information from any source other than directly from the First party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Indeed...
First Party: The original person the information belongs to.
Second Party: An entity the 1st party directly shared the information with.
Third Party: EVERYONE or anyone else who got the information from any source other than directly from the First party.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620000</id>
	<title>Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio</title>
	<author>spiffmastercow</author>
	<datestamp>1262373540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The US is a corpratocracy. Signing your life over to your corporate overlords is so ingrained in the culture that nobody even thinks about it anymore.  We only have a federal government so that we can keep up appearances.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US is a corpratocracy .
Signing your life over to your corporate overlords is so ingrained in the culture that nobody even thinks about it anymore .
We only have a federal government so that we can keep up appearances .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US is a corpratocracy.
Signing your life over to your corporate overlords is so ingrained in the culture that nobody even thinks about it anymore.
We only have a federal government so that we can keep up appearances.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619670</id>
	<title>Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262369640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No I can't imagine a world without money, I did really want to at one point when I was younger and enjoying Star Trek and whatnot but I am wiser now.</p><p>Money is just an agreed form of trade, that's it, whether it is paper or bartering goods and services directly, there is always a need to extract a service from someone else that you can't do yourself. Even if we invent Replicators that solve our material needs, unless everyone becomes completely knowledgeable of every field of endeavour, trade is still needed, the only alternative is exploitation. It's the curse of finiteness [That competition will exist and persist].</p><p>In a finite environment, there will always be those who want a bigger piece of the pie then everyone else since that guarantees a life of ease off the backs of others. This is not something you can cure, you can talk about Utopia all you want but in the end, a Utopia is easily exploited by one bad apple making it unsustainable the moment such an individual exists. If you really think you have some great insight into a way around this then I am curious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No I ca n't imagine a world without money , I did really want to at one point when I was younger and enjoying Star Trek and whatnot but I am wiser now.Money is just an agreed form of trade , that 's it , whether it is paper or bartering goods and services directly , there is always a need to extract a service from someone else that you ca n't do yourself .
Even if we invent Replicators that solve our material needs , unless everyone becomes completely knowledgeable of every field of endeavour , trade is still needed , the only alternative is exploitation .
It 's the curse of finiteness [ That competition will exist and persist ] .In a finite environment , there will always be those who want a bigger piece of the pie then everyone else since that guarantees a life of ease off the backs of others .
This is not something you can cure , you can talk about Utopia all you want but in the end , a Utopia is easily exploited by one bad apple making it unsustainable the moment such an individual exists .
If you really think you have some great insight into a way around this then I am curious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No I can't imagine a world without money, I did really want to at one point when I was younger and enjoying Star Trek and whatnot but I am wiser now.Money is just an agreed form of trade, that's it, whether it is paper or bartering goods and services directly, there is always a need to extract a service from someone else that you can't do yourself.
Even if we invent Replicators that solve our material needs, unless everyone becomes completely knowledgeable of every field of endeavour, trade is still needed, the only alternative is exploitation.
It's the curse of finiteness [That competition will exist and persist].In a finite environment, there will always be those who want a bigger piece of the pie then everyone else since that guarantees a life of ease off the backs of others.
This is not something you can cure, you can talk about Utopia all you want but in the end, a Utopia is easily exploited by one bad apple making it unsustainable the moment such an individual exists.
If you really think you have some great insight into a way around this then I am curious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619796</id>
	<title>Re:Query</title>
	<author>quickgold192</author>
	<datestamp>1262371080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as the govt didn't enlist the corporation to collect the evidence in the first place, the corporation would not be a govt actor (it would be a vigilantee). Also, if the govt is not on a quest for evidence, the info collected is fair game. Oh, and IANAL but I have had 3 credit hours of law which seems good enough for this thread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as the govt did n't enlist the corporation to collect the evidence in the first place , the corporation would not be a govt actor ( it would be a vigilantee ) .
Also , if the govt is not on a quest for evidence , the info collected is fair game .
Oh , and IANAL but I have had 3 credit hours of law which seems good enough for this thread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as the govt didn't enlist the corporation to collect the evidence in the first place, the corporation would not be a govt actor (it would be a vigilantee).
Also, if the govt is not on a quest for evidence, the info collected is fair game.
Oh, and IANAL but I have had 3 credit hours of law which seems good enough for this thread.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619704</id>
	<title>Re:Query</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1262370000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"method of gathering is a clear end-run around the Constitution?"<br>
The NSA used to set up near international trunklines and follow the Russians and their client states.<br>
Where is the NSA now?  <br>Their cubical workers are out in Georgia, Hawaii, Lynn, MA, Arizona, CA, Missouri, Virginia, Ohio via their own new builds or your local "Fusion center"<br>
Why the US heartland?  What is decades of spy on spy skill set doing in the fly over states?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" method of gathering is a clear end-run around the Constitution ?
" The NSA used to set up near international trunklines and follow the Russians and their client states .
Where is the NSA now ?
Their cubical workers are out in Georgia , Hawaii , Lynn , MA , Arizona , CA , Missouri , Virginia , Ohio via their own new builds or your local " Fusion center " Why the US heartland ?
What is decades of spy on spy skill set doing in the fly over states ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"method of gathering is a clear end-run around the Constitution?
"
The NSA used to set up near international trunklines and follow the Russians and their client states.
Where is the NSA now?
Their cubical workers are out in Georgia, Hawaii, Lynn, MA, Arizona, CA, Missouri, Virginia, Ohio via their own new builds or your local "Fusion center"
Why the US heartland?
What is decades of spy on spy skill set doing in the fly over states?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620206</id>
	<title>Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio</title>
	<author>the\_fat\_kid</author>
	<datestamp>1262462700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because corporations cannot use (misuse) said information to jail people, yet.</p><p>There fixed that for you</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because corporations can not use ( misuse ) said information to jail people , yet.There fixed that for you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because corporations cannot use (misuse) said information to jail people, yet.There fixed that for you</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619594</id>
	<title>Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262368800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Why does the US have this fetish with keeping the government out of their private lives, yet allow corporations free reign to use, misuse, misplace and basically be asses with the same information?"

Because corporations cannot use (misuse) said information to jail people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Why does the US have this fetish with keeping the government out of their private lives , yet allow corporations free reign to use , misuse , misplace and basically be asses with the same information ?
" Because corporations can not use ( misuse ) said information to jail people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Why does the US have this fetish with keeping the government out of their private lives, yet allow corporations free reign to use, misuse, misplace and basically be asses with the same information?
"

Because corporations cannot use (misuse) said information to jail people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620090</id>
	<title>there are many problems with government</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1262374740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but no government is far, far worse</p><p>the idea is to improve upon failures, not negate the whole entity. to criticize the very existence of government rather than why government needs improvement is a hard fail on your part</p><p>government is a necessarily evil, but completely necessary</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but no government is far , far worsethe idea is to improve upon failures , not negate the whole entity .
to criticize the very existence of government rather than why government needs improvement is a hard fail on your partgovernment is a necessarily evil , but completely necessary</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but no government is far, far worsethe idea is to improve upon failures, not negate the whole entity.
to criticize the very existence of government rather than why government needs improvement is a hard fail on your partgovernment is a necessarily evil, but completely necessary</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619742</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619426</id>
	<title>Facebook exists for a reason.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262366520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When 'free' web services which are obviously tremendously expensive to maintain and which feature only a token handful of banner ads. . .</p><p>I don't know the economics of Facebook and Yahoo and Google, but it certainly seems that there would be a TON of money available for the kind of information they pull in.  Do corporations actively resist selling a constantly renewable resource they specifically crafted their web sites and web applications to generate?  I have no trouble believing that Facebook is selling everything they glean about you to the highest bidder.  It's Google that I find myself wondering about; their "Don't Be Evil" thing is so effective that even I have the slogan burned into my mind.</p><p>But do those Google ads REALLY pay for entire data centers and dedicated trunks and hundreds of miles of fiber optics?</p><p>Really?</p><p>-FL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When 'free ' web services which are obviously tremendously expensive to maintain and which feature only a token handful of banner ads .
. .I do n't know the economics of Facebook and Yahoo and Google , but it certainly seems that there would be a TON of money available for the kind of information they pull in .
Do corporations actively resist selling a constantly renewable resource they specifically crafted their web sites and web applications to generate ?
I have no trouble believing that Facebook is selling everything they glean about you to the highest bidder .
It 's Google that I find myself wondering about ; their " Do n't Be Evil " thing is so effective that even I have the slogan burned into my mind.But do those Google ads REALLY pay for entire data centers and dedicated trunks and hundreds of miles of fiber optics ? Really ? -FL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When 'free' web services which are obviously tremendously expensive to maintain and which feature only a token handful of banner ads.
. .I don't know the economics of Facebook and Yahoo and Google, but it certainly seems that there would be a TON of money available for the kind of information they pull in.
Do corporations actively resist selling a constantly renewable resource they specifically crafted their web sites and web applications to generate?
I have no trouble believing that Facebook is selling everything they glean about you to the highest bidder.
It's Google that I find myself wondering about; their "Don't Be Evil" thing is so effective that even I have the slogan burned into my mind.But do those Google ads REALLY pay for entire data centers and dedicated trunks and hundreds of miles of fiber optics?Really?-FL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619370</id>
	<title>It's not a loophole, it's a feature.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262365920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They designed it to work this way.  It has the appearance of legitimacy.</p><p>It falls to SCOTUS to do the heavy lifting, albeit a decade too late.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They designed it to work this way .
It has the appearance of legitimacy.It falls to SCOTUS to do the heavy lifting , albeit a decade too late .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They designed it to work this way.
It has the appearance of legitimacy.It falls to SCOTUS to do the heavy lifting, albeit a decade too late.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384</id>
	<title>Equal protection from government and corporations</title>
	<author>Rakshasa Taisab</author>
	<datestamp>1262366040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is something that has had me puzzled for quite a while now. Why does the US have this fetish with keeping the government out of their private lives, yet allow corporations free reign to use, misuse, misplace and basically be asses with the same information?</p><p>In e.g. Norway all sectors are under the same law, this including corporate, governmental and academic uses. Obviously certain organizations are allowed to store more information than others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is something that has had me puzzled for quite a while now .
Why does the US have this fetish with keeping the government out of their private lives , yet allow corporations free reign to use , misuse , misplace and basically be asses with the same information ? In e.g .
Norway all sectors are under the same law , this including corporate , governmental and academic uses .
Obviously certain organizations are allowed to store more information than others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is something that has had me puzzled for quite a while now.
Why does the US have this fetish with keeping the government out of their private lives, yet allow corporations free reign to use, misuse, misplace and basically be asses with the same information?In e.g.
Norway all sectors are under the same law, this including corporate, governmental and academic uses.
Obviously certain organizations are allowed to store more information than others.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619560</id>
	<title>Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1262368260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're not like that because it is cold in Norway and it would be costly and hard to make the move.</p><p>Just please don't claim we have WMDs before invading to bring us the Democracy you think we deserve... we know we have em.<br>----</p><p>Don't you wish we could get the best things from the top governments and establish that?  I sure do.  Hell, I bet most of our politician's on a personal level would appreciate it as well.   The problem is that those changes are not in line with corrupt political processes that directly influence our every word in politics.</p><p>Wtf is a revolution?  The facade of a fresh start, only to be subverted by the exploits of man in a system bidding *money* as a prize, pitting us against each other in competition for survival...   We've done that once, and over 200 years later we're finding out its the same turd with the same peanuts.... it just looked liked it flushed down for a little while.</p><p>If we don't see the problem as a result of true causes, our cultures, our ethics, our ideas (such as money), then we won't ever really fix it.  If you've read this and you can't imagine a functional world without money, you're not trying, or able, and your simple brainwash will always be a roadblock to progress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're not like that because it is cold in Norway and it would be costly and hard to make the move.Just please do n't claim we have WMDs before invading to bring us the Democracy you think we deserve... we know we have em.----Do n't you wish we could get the best things from the top governments and establish that ?
I sure do .
Hell , I bet most of our politician 's on a personal level would appreciate it as well .
The problem is that those changes are not in line with corrupt political processes that directly influence our every word in politics.Wtf is a revolution ?
The facade of a fresh start , only to be subverted by the exploits of man in a system bidding * money * as a prize , pitting us against each other in competition for survival... We 've done that once , and over 200 years later we 're finding out its the same turd with the same peanuts.... it just looked liked it flushed down for a little while.If we do n't see the problem as a result of true causes , our cultures , our ethics , our ideas ( such as money ) , then we wo n't ever really fix it .
If you 've read this and you ca n't imagine a functional world without money , you 're not trying , or able , and your simple brainwash will always be a roadblock to progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're not like that because it is cold in Norway and it would be costly and hard to make the move.Just please don't claim we have WMDs before invading to bring us the Democracy you think we deserve... we know we have em.----Don't you wish we could get the best things from the top governments and establish that?
I sure do.
Hell, I bet most of our politician's on a personal level would appreciate it as well.
The problem is that those changes are not in line with corrupt political processes that directly influence our every word in politics.Wtf is a revolution?
The facade of a fresh start, only to be subverted by the exploits of man in a system bidding *money* as a prize, pitting us against each other in competition for survival...   We've done that once, and over 200 years later we're finding out its the same turd with the same peanuts.... it just looked liked it flushed down for a little while.If we don't see the problem as a result of true causes, our cultures, our ethics, our ideas (such as money), then we won't ever really fix it.
If you've read this and you can't imagine a functional world without money, you're not trying, or able, and your simple brainwash will always be a roadblock to progress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619622</id>
	<title>Information wants to be free man...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262369160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get used to it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get used to it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get used to it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619612</id>
	<title>Its due to misunderstanding of law</title>
	<author>bussdriver</author>
	<datestamp>1262369040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same literal minded thought that insults the intelligence of the legal system by playing technical games with clear intent to violate the law, allows 3rd/4th/5th party circumvention. This same literal thinking allows corporations exemption from all laws imposed upon government.</p><p>In the USA corporations are thought to be separate entities and given ridiculous levels of power (which hasn't always been the case.) The truth is that corporations ARE government entities whose entire existence and basic operation depend upon government. Simply because a kind of government created organization is  "independently" managed does not mean it is not a government entity. Therefore, corporations fall under the classification as government unless specifically specified otherwise (or there may be a blanket law which may exist, I don't know. If it does exist, then the government clearly agreed with this logic.)</p><p>People get upset when government exempts itself from the laws and creates excuses for doing so. But if they can create a generalized hack that is less obvious... By empowering a 3rd party they pay... individuals being more difficult to use &amp; scale; the corporation is perfectly suited to this task.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same literal minded thought that insults the intelligence of the legal system by playing technical games with clear intent to violate the law , allows 3rd/4th/5th party circumvention .
This same literal thinking allows corporations exemption from all laws imposed upon government.In the USA corporations are thought to be separate entities and given ridiculous levels of power ( which has n't always been the case .
) The truth is that corporations ARE government entities whose entire existence and basic operation depend upon government .
Simply because a kind of government created organization is " independently " managed does not mean it is not a government entity .
Therefore , corporations fall under the classification as government unless specifically specified otherwise ( or there may be a blanket law which may exist , I do n't know .
If it does exist , then the government clearly agreed with this logic .
) People get upset when government exempts itself from the laws and creates excuses for doing so .
But if they can create a generalized hack that is less obvious... By empowering a 3rd party they pay... individuals being more difficult to use &amp; scale ; the corporation is perfectly suited to this task .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same literal minded thought that insults the intelligence of the legal system by playing technical games with clear intent to violate the law, allows 3rd/4th/5th party circumvention.
This same literal thinking allows corporations exemption from all laws imposed upon government.In the USA corporations are thought to be separate entities and given ridiculous levels of power (which hasn't always been the case.
) The truth is that corporations ARE government entities whose entire existence and basic operation depend upon government.
Simply because a kind of government created organization is  "independently" managed does not mean it is not a government entity.
Therefore, corporations fall under the classification as government unless specifically specified otherwise (or there may be a blanket law which may exist, I don't know.
If it does exist, then the government clearly agreed with this logic.
)People get upset when government exempts itself from the laws and creates excuses for doing so.
But if they can create a generalized hack that is less obvious... By empowering a 3rd party they pay... individuals being more difficult to use &amp; scale; the corporation is perfectly suited to this task.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620950</id>
	<title>Re:Bend over citizen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262430780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>frog... boiling water heated gradually... Nazi government... Fourth Reich</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth\_Reich" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth\_Reich</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>'nuff said.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>frog... boiling water heated gradually... Nazi government... Fourth Reichhttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth \ _Reich [ wikipedia.org ] 'nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>frog... boiling water heated gradually... Nazi government... Fourth Reichhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth\_Reich [wikipedia.org]'nuff said.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619438</id>
	<title>Query</title>
	<author>PakProtector</author>
	<datestamp>1262366760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am not a Lawyer, but wouldn't this make those agencies contracted to do this by the Government <i>de facto</i> Agents of the Government, and therefore any materials obtained by them in violation of the 4th Amendment poisoned?</p><p>Also, wouldn't a judge have to throw out such evidence as its method of gathering is a clear end-run around the Constitution?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not a Lawyer , but would n't this make those agencies contracted to do this by the Government de facto Agents of the Government , and therefore any materials obtained by them in violation of the 4th Amendment poisoned ? Also , would n't a judge have to throw out such evidence as its method of gathering is a clear end-run around the Constitution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not a Lawyer, but wouldn't this make those agencies contracted to do this by the Government de facto Agents of the Government, and therefore any materials obtained by them in violation of the 4th Amendment poisoned?Also, wouldn't a judge have to throw out such evidence as its method of gathering is a clear end-run around the Constitution?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619888</id>
	<title>Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262372100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Government has far more power than a corporation, and thus far more potential to abuse information than a corporation. Also, as a side effect of capitalism, usually information is collected by corporations to give them an advantage over the competition - and this they tend to keep their collections secret to maintain that advantage. (Obviously not true for ALL corporations, but true for very many corporations.)</p><p>History has generally shown the paranoia to be justified, by the way. No one does large-scale human rights abuse quite like governments do. Corporations tend to lack the means or the motivation unless 1) there IS no government, or 2) the government has hired them to do the abuses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Government has far more power than a corporation , and thus far more potential to abuse information than a corporation .
Also , as a side effect of capitalism , usually information is collected by corporations to give them an advantage over the competition - and this they tend to keep their collections secret to maintain that advantage .
( Obviously not true for ALL corporations , but true for very many corporations .
) History has generally shown the paranoia to be justified , by the way .
No one does large-scale human rights abuse quite like governments do .
Corporations tend to lack the means or the motivation unless 1 ) there IS no government , or 2 ) the government has hired them to do the abuses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government has far more power than a corporation, and thus far more potential to abuse information than a corporation.
Also, as a side effect of capitalism, usually information is collected by corporations to give them an advantage over the competition - and this they tend to keep their collections secret to maintain that advantage.
(Obviously not true for ALL corporations, but true for very many corporations.
)History has generally shown the paranoia to be justified, by the way.
No one does large-scale human rights abuse quite like governments do.
Corporations tend to lack the means or the motivation unless 1) there IS no government, or 2) the government has hired them to do the abuses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619504</id>
	<title>Fourth parties?</title>
	<author>Lakitu</author>
	<datestamp>1262367540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't a fourth-party just another third-party?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't a fourth-party just another third-party ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't a fourth-party just another third-party?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619840</id>
	<title>Re:Facebook exists for a reason.</title>
	<author>TheLink</author>
	<datestamp>1262371500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've always wondered whether the NSA is buying billions of dollars of Ads from Google, or various other companies<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).</p><p>They can always get the money. The US military has "black budgets". The US Federal Reserve refuses to disclose where trillions of US dollars has gone to and only a few people are kicking up a fuss about it (there's a persistent senator and even Bloomberg has tried, but they're not getting much traction - the citizens care more about the notorious bonuses which are much smaller in amount).</p><p>So it's a matter of whether they can disguise the transfer well enough.</p><p>That said, google should be able to make a lot of $$$$ if they ever dealt in stocks and other financial stuff, and used what they know. While it's not quite insider trading, they do have an advantage. And they could do something innocuous and profit from it: <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/09/six-year-old-st/" title="wired.com">http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/09/six-year-old-st/</a> [wired.com]</p><p>I doubt they do the second thing though. As for the first case, I do wonder who are buying all those ads - I know a fair number are, but fact is google typically finds your organization and products well enough without you needing to advertise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always wondered whether the NSA is buying billions of dollars of Ads from Google , or various other companies : ) .They can always get the money .
The US military has " black budgets " .
The US Federal Reserve refuses to disclose where trillions of US dollars has gone to and only a few people are kicking up a fuss about it ( there 's a persistent senator and even Bloomberg has tried , but they 're not getting much traction - the citizens care more about the notorious bonuses which are much smaller in amount ) .So it 's a matter of whether they can disguise the transfer well enough.That said , google should be able to make a lot of $ $ $ $ if they ever dealt in stocks and other financial stuff , and used what they know .
While it 's not quite insider trading , they do have an advantage .
And they could do something innocuous and profit from it : http : //www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/09/six-year-old-st/ [ wired.com ] I doubt they do the second thing though .
As for the first case , I do wonder who are buying all those ads - I know a fair number are , but fact is google typically finds your organization and products well enough without you needing to advertise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always wondered whether the NSA is buying billions of dollars of Ads from Google, or various other companies :).They can always get the money.
The US military has "black budgets".
The US Federal Reserve refuses to disclose where trillions of US dollars has gone to and only a few people are kicking up a fuss about it (there's a persistent senator and even Bloomberg has tried, but they're not getting much traction - the citizens care more about the notorious bonuses which are much smaller in amount).So it's a matter of whether they can disguise the transfer well enough.That said, google should be able to make a lot of $$$$ if they ever dealt in stocks and other financial stuff, and used what they know.
While it's not quite insider trading, they do have an advantage.
And they could do something innocuous and profit from it: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/09/six-year-old-st/ [wired.com]I doubt they do the second thing though.
As for the first case, I do wonder who are buying all those ads - I know a fair number are, but fact is google typically finds your organization and products well enough without you needing to advertise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619526</id>
	<title>There is no fourth party.</title>
	<author>topham</author>
	<datestamp>1262367780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no such thing as fourth party.</p><p>Third party is used to define a party not directly involved. A third party to a third party is still a third party.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no such thing as fourth party.Third party is used to define a party not directly involved .
A third party to a third party is still a third party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no such thing as fourth party.Third party is used to define a party not directly involved.
A third party to a third party is still a third party.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30665040</id>
	<title>Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262708760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is something that has had me puzzled for quite a while now. Why does the US have this fetish with keeping the government out of their private lives, yet allow corporations free reign to use, misuse, misplace and basically be asses with the same information?.</p></div><p>Because the government can jail you, confiscate your property and money,  and even take your life.  It has that much power. Corporations can't do any of that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is something that has had me puzzled for quite a while now .
Why does the US have this fetish with keeping the government out of their private lives , yet allow corporations free reign to use , misuse , misplace and basically be asses with the same information ? .Because the government can jail you , confiscate your property and money , and even take your life .
It has that much power .
Corporations ca n't do any of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is something that has had me puzzled for quite a while now.
Why does the US have this fetish with keeping the government out of their private lives, yet allow corporations free reign to use, misuse, misplace and basically be asses with the same information?.Because the government can jail you, confiscate your property and money,  and even take your life.
It has that much power.
Corporations can't do any of that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30624400</id>
	<title>Re:We're doing it to ourselves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262460000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You honestly believe the federal government is still 'us'? I don't. It has been a self supporting anti citizen entity for as long as i can remember and 'us' isnt a part of it anywhere. ( except that we are forced to fund it )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You honestly believe the federal government is still 'us ' ?
I do n't .
It has been a self supporting anti citizen entity for as long as i can remember and 'us ' isnt a part of it anywhere .
( except that we are forced to fund it )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You honestly believe the federal government is still 'us'?
I don't.
It has been a self supporting anti citizen entity for as long as i can remember and 'us' isnt a part of it anywhere.
( except that we are forced to fund it )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619666</id>
	<title>Re:Query</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262369580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Protip: If someone creates a convoluted rule system, and you&rsquo;re then buying into his rule system, and try to argue on the definition of those rules, you have already lost before you started.</p><p>The better way is, to not buy into their crapola in the first place, but have your own set of values that you are secure in. Then you can let them play in your reality, instead of you entering theirs.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Protip : If someone creates a convoluted rule system , and you    re then buying into his rule system , and try to argue on the definition of those rules , you have already lost before you started.The better way is , to not buy into their crapola in the first place , but have your own set of values that you are secure in .
Then you can let them play in your reality , instead of you entering theirs .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Protip: If someone creates a convoluted rule system, and you’re then buying into his rule system, and try to argue on the definition of those rules, you have already lost before you started.The better way is, to not buy into their crapola in the first place, but have your own set of values that you are secure in.
Then you can let them play in your reality, instead of you entering theirs.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619438</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619816</id>
	<title>Your Constitutional rights</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262371260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry, both major political parties will do the same thing to correct this injustice! And both will blame the other party, while doing nothing about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , both major political parties will do the same thing to correct this injustice !
And both will blame the other party , while doing nothing about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, both major political parties will do the same thing to correct this injustice!
And both will blame the other party, while doing nothing about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30629654</id>
	<title>Re:Bend over citizen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262458500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are getting around this and they have been doing this for at least the last 8 years</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are getting around this and they have been doing this for at least the last 8 years</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are getting around this and they have been doing this for at least the last 8 years</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30624418</id>
	<title>Easy</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1262460060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the corporations buy the laws.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the corporations buy the laws .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the corporations buy the laws.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620154</id>
	<title>Re:Equal protection from government and corporatio</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1262375580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because corporations cannot use (misuse) said information to jail people.</p></div><p>In the US we also have longer prison terms than any of the EU countries, with the possible exception of the UK, for similar crimes. This is mostly due to decades of "get tough on crime" initiatives commonly introduced by politicians to score political points with ignorant and misinformed constituents. Additionally, there are many more "mandatory minimum" sentences for crimes committed here in the US which tie the hands of judges and require harsh punishments; even for non-violent or first time offenders. Finally, a felony conviction in the US these days is like a modern day "scarlet letter"; almost certainly punishing those convicted even after a sentence has been served with lower income, job discrimination, and social ostracization (i.e. no more forgiveness or second chances). So perhaps now the GP can understand why some of us (the ones who can still think for ourselves anyway) are so concerned about an overreaching and powerful government that doesn't respect privacy and pokes around in people's private affairs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because corporations can not use ( misuse ) said information to jail people.In the US we also have longer prison terms than any of the EU countries , with the possible exception of the UK , for similar crimes .
This is mostly due to decades of " get tough on crime " initiatives commonly introduced by politicians to score political points with ignorant and misinformed constituents .
Additionally , there are many more " mandatory minimum " sentences for crimes committed here in the US which tie the hands of judges and require harsh punishments ; even for non-violent or first time offenders .
Finally , a felony conviction in the US these days is like a modern day " scarlet letter " ; almost certainly punishing those convicted even after a sentence has been served with lower income , job discrimination , and social ostracization ( i.e .
no more forgiveness or second chances ) .
So perhaps now the GP can understand why some of us ( the ones who can still think for ourselves anyway ) are so concerned about an overreaching and powerful government that does n't respect privacy and pokes around in people 's private affairs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because corporations cannot use (misuse) said information to jail people.In the US we also have longer prison terms than any of the EU countries, with the possible exception of the UK, for similar crimes.
This is mostly due to decades of "get tough on crime" initiatives commonly introduced by politicians to score political points with ignorant and misinformed constituents.
Additionally, there are many more "mandatory minimum" sentences for crimes committed here in the US which tie the hands of judges and require harsh punishments; even for non-violent or first time offenders.
Finally, a felony conviction in the US these days is like a modern day "scarlet letter"; almost certainly punishing those convicted even after a sentence has been served with lower income, job discrimination, and social ostracization (i.e.
no more forgiveness or second chances).
So perhaps now the GP can understand why some of us (the ones who can still think for ourselves anyway) are so concerned about an overreaching and powerful government that doesn't respect privacy and pokes around in people's private affairs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619534</id>
	<title>Re:We're doing it to ourselves</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1262367840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's our government, and if it's screwing us it's basically us screwing ourselves.</p><p>Non-sequitur and off-topic, has there ever been a media anti-trust action in history?</p></div><p>If there was, you probably didn't hear about it.</p><p>Funny? Scary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's our government , and if it 's screwing us it 's basically us screwing ourselves.Non-sequitur and off-topic , has there ever been a media anti-trust action in history ? If there was , you probably did n't hear about it.Funny ?
Scary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's our government, and if it's screwing us it's basically us screwing ourselves.Non-sequitur and off-topic, has there ever been a media anti-trust action in history?If there was, you probably didn't hear about it.Funny?
Scary.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30621062</id>
	<title>Re:Bend over citizen</title>
	<author>zoomshorts</author>
	<datestamp>1262432640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It has always been my position that if MY personal data<br>is worth anything to anybody, it is worth $5,000.00 USD<br>to ME. Any portion of MY data, like SSN, Name, Phone number,<br>address , email address etc.</p><p>Laws need to be authored to allow me to invoice people who<br>send me junk mail, call me etc. I will invoice them at the<br>rate of $5,000.00 per instance and be glad to pay taxes on<br>the money.</p><p>We can hit these idiots where it hurts. If they fail to pay,<br>turn them over to a collection agency. Fsck those data mining<br>douchebags. All the end up doing is causing me work, for which<br>I am not paid.</p><p>By the way, my many names are Current occupant, Resident, Homeowner<br>ad nauseum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has always been my position that if MY personal datais worth anything to anybody , it is worth $ 5,000.00 USDto ME .
Any portion of MY data , like SSN , Name , Phone number,address , email address etc.Laws need to be authored to allow me to invoice people whosend me junk mail , call me etc .
I will invoice them at therate of $ 5,000.00 per instance and be glad to pay taxes onthe money.We can hit these idiots where it hurts .
If they fail to pay,turn them over to a collection agency .
Fsck those data miningdouchebags .
All the end up doing is causing me work , for whichI am not paid.By the way , my many names are Current occupant , Resident , Homeownerad nauseum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has always been my position that if MY personal datais worth anything to anybody, it is worth $5,000.00 USDto ME.
Any portion of MY data, like SSN, Name, Phone number,address , email address etc.Laws need to be authored to allow me to invoice people whosend me junk mail, call me etc.
I will invoice them at therate of $5,000.00 per instance and be glad to pay taxes onthe money.We can hit these idiots where it hurts.
If they fail to pay,turn them over to a collection agency.
Fsck those data miningdouchebags.
All the end up doing is causing me work, for whichI am not paid.By the way, my many names are Current occupant, Resident, Homeownerad nauseum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619524</id>
	<title>Re:Bend over citizen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262367780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Loopholes. Always loopholes.</p></div><p>The B.S. in this whole thing, that which stinks, is that whatever they are wordsmithing as 'fourth party' is STILL a 'third party'.</p><p>You can't get around it just by renaming it.  Everyone on this planet knows the definition of 'third party' is NOT tied to the number of hands something has passed through at all.</p><p>WTF, really.  Lets get a prosecution on this crap.  The new administration is complacent in the old and has done nothing to bring JUSTICE to the US.   Remember that, despite how you (and I) may have voted for the promise of a new era of honorable leadership.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Loopholes .
Always loopholes.The B.S .
in this whole thing , that which stinks , is that whatever they are wordsmithing as 'fourth party ' is STILL a 'third party'.You ca n't get around it just by renaming it .
Everyone on this planet knows the definition of 'third party ' is NOT tied to the number of hands something has passed through at all.WTF , really .
Lets get a prosecution on this crap .
The new administration is complacent in the old and has done nothing to bring JUSTICE to the US .
Remember that , despite how you ( and I ) may have voted for the promise of a new era of honorable leadership .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Loopholes.
Always loopholes.The B.S.
in this whole thing, that which stinks, is that whatever they are wordsmithing as 'fourth party' is STILL a 'third party'.You can't get around it just by renaming it.
Everyone on this planet knows the definition of 'third party' is NOT tied to the number of hands something has passed through at all.WTF, really.
Lets get a prosecution on this crap.
The new administration is complacent in the old and has done nothing to bring JUSTICE to the US.
Remember that, despite how you (and I) may have voted for the promise of a new era of honorable leadership.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30623632</id>
	<title>Re:We're doing it to ourselves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262455980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Non-sequitur and off-topic, has there ever been a media anti-trust action in history?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>There have been several against the record companies.  They have been caught rigging prices on CDs.  The government occasionally sues them.  They settle out of court for a pitiful sum.  The settlement guarantees no further action against them--until they do it again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Non-sequitur and off-topic , has there ever been a media anti-trust action in history ?
There have been several against the record companies .
They have been caught rigging prices on CDs .
The government occasionally sues them .
They settle out of court for a pitiful sum .
The settlement guarantees no further action against them--until they do it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Non-sequitur and off-topic, has there ever been a media anti-trust action in history?
There have been several against the record companies.
They have been caught rigging prices on CDs.
The government occasionally sues them.
They settle out of court for a pitiful sum.
The settlement guarantees no further action against them--until they do it again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619852</id>
	<title>Re:Bend over citizen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262371620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the legal dictionary defines it like this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>third party n. a person who is not a party to a contract or a transaction, but has an involvement (such as a buyer from one of the parties, was present when the agreement was signed, or made an offer that was rejected). The third party normally has no legal rights in the matter, unless the contract was made for the third party's benefit.</p></div><p> (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Third+Party)</p><p>So by that definition a "fourth party" (Which I will note is NOT defined in the legal dictionary at all) would mean someone who has NO involvement at all. So as soon as these people get the data... they cease being a 4th party and are, once again, 3rd party.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the legal dictionary defines it like this : third party n. a person who is not a party to a contract or a transaction , but has an involvement ( such as a buyer from one of the parties , was present when the agreement was signed , or made an offer that was rejected ) .
The third party normally has no legal rights in the matter , unless the contract was made for the third party 's benefit .
( http : //legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Third + Party ) So by that definition a " fourth party " ( Which I will note is NOT defined in the legal dictionary at all ) would mean someone who has NO involvement at all .
So as soon as these people get the data... they cease being a 4th party and are , once again , 3rd party .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the legal dictionary defines it like this:third party n. a person who is not a party to a contract or a transaction, but has an involvement (such as a buyer from one of the parties, was present when the agreement was signed, or made an offer that was rejected).
The third party normally has no legal rights in the matter, unless the contract was made for the third party's benefit.
(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Third+Party)So by that definition a "fourth party" (Which I will note is NOT defined in the legal dictionary at all) would mean someone who has NO involvement at all.
So as soon as these people get the data... they cease being a 4th party and are, once again, 3rd party.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620096</id>
	<title>Re:Bend over citizen</title>
	<author>Z00L00K</author>
	<datestamp>1262374800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But if the government pays to get the information - then they are actively searching, even though it's through a proxy.</p><p>Shouldn't the 4th amendment still be valid then?</p><p>I think that a court decision is needed here to determine if this actually is an acceptable way of circumventing the 4th amendment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But if the government pays to get the information - then they are actively searching , even though it 's through a proxy.Should n't the 4th amendment still be valid then ? I think that a court decision is needed here to determine if this actually is an acceptable way of circumventing the 4th amendment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if the government pays to get the information - then they are actively searching, even though it's through a proxy.Shouldn't the 4th amendment still be valid then?I think that a court decision is needed here to determine if this actually is an acceptable way of circumventing the 4th amendment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619342</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30621750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30635234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30624400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30623632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30624418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30621528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30629654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30621062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30626434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_02_0247236_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30665040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0247236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619622
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0247236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619366
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30623632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30624400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0247236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0247236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619796
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0247236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30626434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0247236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30624418
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30621750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619742
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619972
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620090
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30621528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30665040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0247236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619370
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_02_0247236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30621062
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30629654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30619852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30635234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_02_0247236.30620508
</commentlist>
</conversation>
