<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_06_2320207</id>
	<title>FTC Worries About Consumers, Cloud Data, and Privacy</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1262784240000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>pcause writes <i>"Ars Techina has a nice article about the FTC's concern that consumers <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/01/ftc-reminds-us-that-storing-data-in-the-cloud-has-drawbacks.ars">don't understand the implications of storing their data in the cloud</a>.  From the article: 'Data is now sitting on servers outside of your control, where it can be accessed far more easily by Google itself, hackers, and law enforcement than it ever could if kept within the device. Once data passes over the network, it gets much easier to access in realtime; once it is stored on a remote server, it gets much easier to access at any time.  And those are just the phone settings. Google also has access to search history data, anything stored in Google Docs or Spreadsheets, complete schedules stored in Google Calendar, and recent Maps searches. Combine them all, and companies like Google become one-stop shops for authorities looking for personal information.' Do you think the average consumer even has a clue about this issue?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>pcause writes " Ars Techina has a nice article about the FTC 's concern that consumers do n't understand the implications of storing their data in the cloud .
From the article : 'Data is now sitting on servers outside of your control , where it can be accessed far more easily by Google itself , hackers , and law enforcement than it ever could if kept within the device .
Once data passes over the network , it gets much easier to access in realtime ; once it is stored on a remote server , it gets much easier to access at any time .
And those are just the phone settings .
Google also has access to search history data , anything stored in Google Docs or Spreadsheets , complete schedules stored in Google Calendar , and recent Maps searches .
Combine them all , and companies like Google become one-stop shops for authorities looking for personal information .
' Do you think the average consumer even has a clue about this issue ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pcause writes "Ars Techina has a nice article about the FTC's concern that consumers don't understand the implications of storing their data in the cloud.
From the article: 'Data is now sitting on servers outside of your control, where it can be accessed far more easily by Google itself, hackers, and law enforcement than it ever could if kept within the device.
Once data passes over the network, it gets much easier to access in realtime; once it is stored on a remote server, it gets much easier to access at any time.
And those are just the phone settings.
Google also has access to search history data, anything stored in Google Docs or Spreadsheets, complete schedules stored in Google Calendar, and recent Maps searches.
Combine them all, and companies like Google become one-stop shops for authorities looking for personal information.
' Do you think the average consumer even has a clue about this issue?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30701762</id>
	<title>who cares!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262953200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>its about the end product not about the process of creating it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>its about the end product not about the process of creating it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>its about the end product not about the process of creating it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678162</id>
	<title>Don't you want target ads?</title>
	<author>GunpowderTreason</author>
	<datestamp>1262791260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So I guess my question on the ad portion of this topic is do you guys really care? I would rather see ads for products I'm interested in than things I'm not. On Hulu if it would let me choose between Best Buy and Tampax ads I'm gonna choose Best Buy every time. So I don't really mind that. The thing is that there is obviously a line somewhere along the way. For me that point was when I had emails about church meetings (I'm a Mormon and not ashamed of it) and the ads were for sites attacking my religion. For me that personally crossed a line but I really don't mind seeing ads for sports or tech instead of makeup and pads. Thoughts?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So I guess my question on the ad portion of this topic is do you guys really care ?
I would rather see ads for products I 'm interested in than things I 'm not .
On Hulu if it would let me choose between Best Buy and Tampax ads I 'm gon na choose Best Buy every time .
So I do n't really mind that .
The thing is that there is obviously a line somewhere along the way .
For me that point was when I had emails about church meetings ( I 'm a Mormon and not ashamed of it ) and the ads were for sites attacking my religion .
For me that personally crossed a line but I really do n't mind seeing ads for sports or tech instead of makeup and pads .
Thoughts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I guess my question on the ad portion of this topic is do you guys really care?
I would rather see ads for products I'm interested in than things I'm not.
On Hulu if it would let me choose between Best Buy and Tampax ads I'm gonna choose Best Buy every time.
So I don't really mind that.
The thing is that there is obviously a line somewhere along the way.
For me that point was when I had emails about church meetings (I'm a Mormon and not ashamed of it) and the ads were for sites attacking my religion.
For me that personally crossed a line but I really don't mind seeing ads for sports or tech instead of makeup and pads.
Thoughts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30681062</id>
	<title>Re:We'll be right back after this from the cloud.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262870700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Will what you post on MySpace suddenly influence which ad you see when you're watching Fox? Should it?</p></div><p>I can tell you for a fact, that your myspace/facebook profile does not only influence your online-ads, but your offline-ads (direct mailings) as well. ALREADY since 2009.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will what you post on MySpace suddenly influence which ad you see when you 're watching Fox ?
Should it ? I can tell you for a fact , that your myspace/facebook profile does not only influence your online-ads , but your offline-ads ( direct mailings ) as well .
ALREADY since 2009 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will what you post on MySpace suddenly influence which ad you see when you're watching Fox?
Should it?I can tell you for a fact, that your myspace/facebook profile does not only influence your online-ads, but your offline-ads (direct mailings) as well.
ALREADY since 2009.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678592</id>
	<title>I doubt it</title>
	<author>Rehnberg</author>
	<datestamp>1262795040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really, most people don't realize how much information is IN the cloud. For example, my mom was very surprised to discover that her email redownloaded after she deleted it from her computer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , most people do n't realize how much information is IN the cloud .
For example , my mom was very surprised to discover that her email redownloaded after she deleted it from her computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, most people don't realize how much information is IN the cloud.
For example, my mom was very surprised to discover that her email redownloaded after she deleted it from her computer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678152</id>
	<title>Re:I was just thinking about this today</title>
	<author>Brian Gordon</author>
	<datestamp>1262791200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How could they find that particular device? If you don't have it associated with a cell provider account then it's not associated with your name in any way. It's just a MAC address connected to a wifi network behind a NAT.</p><p>You're right to worry about 911 though. When you're connected to E911, all security bets are off. Manufacturers of phones for the US are required by law to make sure that a connected E911 operator has access to the cell phone's location, either by some weird cell triangulation or by GPS. I wouldn't be surprised if this part is buried deep into the hard-coded closed-source part of Android.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How could they find that particular device ?
If you do n't have it associated with a cell provider account then it 's not associated with your name in any way .
It 's just a MAC address connected to a wifi network behind a NAT.You 're right to worry about 911 though .
When you 're connected to E911 , all security bets are off .
Manufacturers of phones for the US are required by law to make sure that a connected E911 operator has access to the cell phone 's location , either by some weird cell triangulation or by GPS .
I would n't be surprised if this part is buried deep into the hard-coded closed-source part of Android .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How could they find that particular device?
If you don't have it associated with a cell provider account then it's not associated with your name in any way.
It's just a MAC address connected to a wifi network behind a NAT.You're right to worry about 911 though.
When you're connected to E911, all security bets are off.
Manufacturers of phones for the US are required by law to make sure that a connected E911 operator has access to the cell phone's location, either by some weird cell triangulation or by GPS.
I wouldn't be surprised if this part is buried deep into the hard-coded closed-source part of Android.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679268</id>
	<title>I am not a consumer!</title>
	<author>Arker</author>
	<datestamp>1262801820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is really the biggest problem with the whole system right now. An active citizenry is required to make any democratic or pseudo-democratic system function properly, and a consumer is the precise opposite of an active citizen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is really the biggest problem with the whole system right now .
An active citizenry is required to make any democratic or pseudo-democratic system function properly , and a consumer is the precise opposite of an active citizen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is really the biggest problem with the whole system right now.
An active citizenry is required to make any democratic or pseudo-democratic system function properly, and a consumer is the precise opposite of an active citizen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677846</id>
	<title>use encryption</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1262788740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>strong encryption means they can't access it no matter where the data is. why are we even talking about this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>strong encryption means they ca n't access it no matter where the data is .
why are we even talking about this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>strong encryption means they can't access it no matter where the data is.
why are we even talking about this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678018</id>
	<title>I'm not sure if this is sad or laughable</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1262790000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Once data passes over the network, it gets much easier to access in realtime; once it is stored on a remote server, it gets much easier to access at any time."</p></div></blockquote><p>It sounds like the FCC needs to get educated about security.   Do they really think it is easier to crack an SSL session in realtime or hack Google than it is to hack into a (typical mismanaged / malware ridden) Windows box?<br> <br>Your data is already in systems all over the world, including financial institutions and government agencies.  While the banks aren't easily hackable, many a local and federal system have been shown to be woefully mismanaged and easily hacked.   Why is Google so different?  OK, I admit it is different.  Google probably keeps your data much more safe from hackers than the FCC and other government agencies.<br> <br>Is it an added risk?  Yes.  Is it something that people should be up in arms about?  Of course not.  I won't advance a theory on where this bull comes from, lest I be modded down by those who don't like it, but use your imagination<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Once data passes over the network , it gets much easier to access in realtime ; once it is stored on a remote server , it gets much easier to access at any time .
" It sounds like the FCC needs to get educated about security .
Do they really think it is easier to crack an SSL session in realtime or hack Google than it is to hack into a ( typical mismanaged / malware ridden ) Windows box ?
Your data is already in systems all over the world , including financial institutions and government agencies .
While the banks are n't easily hackable , many a local and federal system have been shown to be woefully mismanaged and easily hacked .
Why is Google so different ?
OK , I admit it is different .
Google probably keeps your data much more safe from hackers than the FCC and other government agencies .
Is it an added risk ?
Yes. Is it something that people should be up in arms about ?
Of course not .
I wo n't advance a theory on where this bull comes from , lest I be modded down by those who do n't like it , but use your imagination ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Once data passes over the network, it gets much easier to access in realtime; once it is stored on a remote server, it gets much easier to access at any time.
"It sounds like the FCC needs to get educated about security.
Do they really think it is easier to crack an SSL session in realtime or hack Google than it is to hack into a (typical mismanaged / malware ridden) Windows box?
Your data is already in systems all over the world, including financial institutions and government agencies.
While the banks aren't easily hackable, many a local and federal system have been shown to be woefully mismanaged and easily hacked.
Why is Google so different?
OK, I admit it is different.
Google probably keeps your data much more safe from hackers than the FCC and other government agencies.
Is it an added risk?
Yes.  Is it something that people should be up in arms about?
Of course not.
I won't advance a theory on where this bull comes from, lest I be modded down by those who don't like it, but use your imagination ;-)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679596</id>
	<title>If you're stupid enough</title>
	<author>i58</author>
	<datestamp>1262806020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>To put sensitive data in something as nebulous as a cloud, you deserve whatever you get. I wouldn't put financial or other personal data in there willingly. Once you open Pandora's box by giving away your data you can't close it. Public is public. Private is private. The chance of a hacker targeting joe cable modem vs "the cloud" is so tiny I'll take my chances protecting my data myself any day. Besides, once your data is there, you have no guarantees whatsoever. You're at their mercy because they already have your data. You think they will scrub your data securely if you ask? Heck no, and even if they did, what about the backup tapes... Yeah, sure we'll secure erase just your stuff from the 30 sets of backups we keep. No problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To put sensitive data in something as nebulous as a cloud , you deserve whatever you get .
I would n't put financial or other personal data in there willingly .
Once you open Pandora 's box by giving away your data you ca n't close it .
Public is public .
Private is private .
The chance of a hacker targeting joe cable modem vs " the cloud " is so tiny I 'll take my chances protecting my data myself any day .
Besides , once your data is there , you have no guarantees whatsoever .
You 're at their mercy because they already have your data .
You think they will scrub your data securely if you ask ?
Heck no , and even if they did , what about the backup tapes... Yeah , sure we 'll secure erase just your stuff from the 30 sets of backups we keep .
No problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To put sensitive data in something as nebulous as a cloud, you deserve whatever you get.
I wouldn't put financial or other personal data in there willingly.
Once you open Pandora's box by giving away your data you can't close it.
Public is public.
Private is private.
The chance of a hacker targeting joe cable modem vs "the cloud" is so tiny I'll take my chances protecting my data myself any day.
Besides, once your data is there, you have no guarantees whatsoever.
You're at their mercy because they already have your data.
You think they will scrub your data securely if you ask?
Heck no, and even if they did, what about the backup tapes... Yeah, sure we'll secure erase just your stuff from the 30 sets of backups we keep.
No problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677954</id>
	<title>Re:I was just thinking about this today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262789460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh please, quit the scaremongering. This thing has GPS - so what? If someone really wanted to track you down, they could? Really? how the hell would they? The device has a GPS receiver, big deal. There's still no way to access the GPS data received by the device. No way to tell you have such a device. No way to tell, which device is yours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh please , quit the scaremongering .
This thing has GPS - so what ?
If someone really wanted to track you down , they could ?
Really ? how the hell would they ?
The device has a GPS receiver , big deal .
There 's still no way to access the GPS data received by the device .
No way to tell you have such a device .
No way to tell , which device is yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh please, quit the scaremongering.
This thing has GPS - so what?
If someone really wanted to track you down, they could?
Really? how the hell would they?
The device has a GPS receiver, big deal.
There's still no way to access the GPS data received by the device.
No way to tell you have such a device.
No way to tell, which device is yours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30681314</id>
	<title>What about DRM?</title>
	<author>3.14159265</author>
	<datestamp>1262873400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd rather see the title "FTC's concern that consumers don't understand the implications of buying DRM-infected data and hardware."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather see the title " FTC 's concern that consumers do n't understand the implications of buying DRM-infected data and hardware .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather see the title "FTC's concern that consumers don't understand the implications of buying DRM-infected data and hardware.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679500</id>
	<title>here's a lesson in privacy appreciation</title>
	<author>PeteV</author>
	<datestamp>1262804460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://blogs.nerve.com/scanner/2009/12/23/guy-posts-his-sisters-hookup-list-to-facebook-and-tags-all-the-guys/" title="nerve.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.nerve.com/scanner/2009/12/23/guy-posts-his-sisters-hookup-list-to-facebook-and-tags-all-the-guys/</a> [nerve.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //blogs.nerve.com/scanner/2009/12/23/guy-posts-his-sisters-hookup-list-to-facebook-and-tags-all-the-guys/ [ nerve.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://blogs.nerve.com/scanner/2009/12/23/guy-posts-his-sisters-hookup-list-to-facebook-and-tags-all-the-guys/ [nerve.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30681642</id>
	<title>Re:I was just thinking about this today</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1262875680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Even without a cell phone plan or sim card in the device.</i></p><p>But not without a battery, or a functional radio.  If you just want the device sans cell coverage and are really concerned about someone tracking you, disable the radio.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even without a cell phone plan or sim card in the device.But not without a battery , or a functional radio .
If you just want the device sans cell coverage and are really concerned about someone tracking you , disable the radio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even without a cell phone plan or sim card in the device.But not without a battery, or a functional radio.
If you just want the device sans cell coverage and are really concerned about someone tracking you, disable the radio.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30697306</id>
	<title>Re:I was just thinking about this today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262977200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why we donate all used phone to Women's shelters. The women can carry them around without service but still use the 911</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why we donate all used phone to Women 's shelters .
The women can carry them around without service but still use the 911</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why we donate all used phone to Women's shelters.
The women can carry them around without service but still use the 911</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678102</id>
	<title>Without Your Permission</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262790720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article reminds me of a Blog Post from last year where the Pretty-Well-Regarded Hosting Company <a href="http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/rimuhosting" title="aaronsw.com" rel="nofollow">rimuhosting.com, gained root access (broke in) to a customers Virtual Machine</a> [aaronsw.com] when the customer explicitly stated that he would not give them root access.</p><p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=789671" title="ycombinator.com" rel="nofollow">A long discussion ensued</a> [ycombinator.com] where people said such silly comments suggesting that you should not expect privacy for a $20 server.  If you get no privacy for $20, what kind of privacy should you expect from Google's Free Cloud...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article reminds me of a Blog Post from last year where the Pretty-Well-Regarded Hosting Company rimuhosting.com , gained root access ( broke in ) to a customers Virtual Machine [ aaronsw.com ] when the customer explicitly stated that he would not give them root access.A long discussion ensued [ ycombinator.com ] where people said such silly comments suggesting that you should not expect privacy for a $ 20 server .
If you get no privacy for $ 20 , what kind of privacy should you expect from Google 's Free Cloud... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article reminds me of a Blog Post from last year where the Pretty-Well-Regarded Hosting Company rimuhosting.com, gained root access (broke in) to a customers Virtual Machine [aaronsw.com] when the customer explicitly stated that he would not give them root access.A long discussion ensued [ycombinator.com] where people said such silly comments suggesting that you should not expect privacy for a $20 server.
If you get no privacy for $20, what kind of privacy should you expect from Google's Free Cloud...?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677780</id>
	<title>Woah</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1262788320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm just shocked the FTC is seemingly saying that easy access for law enforcement is a good thing.</p><p>Sanity in a government agency?!  Cats and dogs living together?  Mass hysteria?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just shocked the FTC is seemingly saying that easy access for law enforcement is a good thing.Sanity in a government agency ? !
Cats and dogs living together ?
Mass hysteria ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just shocked the FTC is seemingly saying that easy access for law enforcement is a good thing.Sanity in a government agency?!
Cats and dogs living together?
Mass hysteria?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678238</id>
	<title>Re:They can know about you, do you know about them</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1262792100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Data on a hard drive in your house can be as accessible over the Internet as data in the cloud, assuming that the hard drive is hooked up to a computer that's connected to the Internet.  The only difference is, "'Data is now sitting on servers outside of your control".  That has nothing to do with "the cloud".  Any hosted service has the same weakness.
</p><p>Yes, sure, if you store all your data on a single company's server, then that means people only need to get access to that company's servers in order to get all of your data.  Maybe people don't understand that, but it shouldn't be news to anyone here.
</p><p>Finally, yes, Google is in a scary position right now.  Not only might they have access to your search results, but if you use Gmail then they have your email and if you use Google Docs then they have your documents.  Right now, Google has a lot of access to a lot of data, which is exactly why people think their "don't be evil" mantra is so important.  If Google chooses to abuse their position, they could cause a lot of problems.
</p><p>So ultimately, this isn't an issue of "the cloud".  It's an issue of how companies (or particular companies) are allowed to use personal data, and whether they're providing sufficient privacy protection to their customers.  Warning people is fine, but I kind of have to wonder what the law says.  Is the law protecting us as well as it should?  If not, if citizens aren't protected well enough, then maybe we should be looking into that instead of just warning people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Data on a hard drive in your house can be as accessible over the Internet as data in the cloud , assuming that the hard drive is hooked up to a computer that 's connected to the Internet .
The only difference is , " 'Data is now sitting on servers outside of your control " .
That has nothing to do with " the cloud " .
Any hosted service has the same weakness .
Yes , sure , if you store all your data on a single company 's server , then that means people only need to get access to that company 's servers in order to get all of your data .
Maybe people do n't understand that , but it should n't be news to anyone here .
Finally , yes , Google is in a scary position right now .
Not only might they have access to your search results , but if you use Gmail then they have your email and if you use Google Docs then they have your documents .
Right now , Google has a lot of access to a lot of data , which is exactly why people think their " do n't be evil " mantra is so important .
If Google chooses to abuse their position , they could cause a lot of problems .
So ultimately , this is n't an issue of " the cloud " .
It 's an issue of how companies ( or particular companies ) are allowed to use personal data , and whether they 're providing sufficient privacy protection to their customers .
Warning people is fine , but I kind of have to wonder what the law says .
Is the law protecting us as well as it should ?
If not , if citizens are n't protected well enough , then maybe we should be looking into that instead of just warning people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Data on a hard drive in your house can be as accessible over the Internet as data in the cloud, assuming that the hard drive is hooked up to a computer that's connected to the Internet.
The only difference is, "'Data is now sitting on servers outside of your control".
That has nothing to do with "the cloud".
Any hosted service has the same weakness.
Yes, sure, if you store all your data on a single company's server, then that means people only need to get access to that company's servers in order to get all of your data.
Maybe people don't understand that, but it shouldn't be news to anyone here.
Finally, yes, Google is in a scary position right now.
Not only might they have access to your search results, but if you use Gmail then they have your email and if you use Google Docs then they have your documents.
Right now, Google has a lot of access to a lot of data, which is exactly why people think their "don't be evil" mantra is so important.
If Google chooses to abuse their position, they could cause a lot of problems.
So ultimately, this isn't an issue of "the cloud".
It's an issue of how companies (or particular companies) are allowed to use personal data, and whether they're providing sufficient privacy protection to their customers.
Warning people is fine, but I kind of have to wonder what the law says.
Is the law protecting us as well as it should?
If not, if citizens aren't protected well enough, then maybe we should be looking into that instead of just warning people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30685822</id>
	<title>Re:Would somebody think of the future of our data?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262893740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...Is there any way to write data and then 10 years later get that same data back?</p></div><p>Clay tablets have lasted for 1000's of years in some cases.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Is there any way to write data and then 10 years later get that same data back ? Clay tablets have lasted for 1000 's of years in some cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...Is there any way to write data and then 10 years later get that same data back?Clay tablets have lasted for 1000's of years in some cases.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677748</id>
	<title>No.</title>
	<author>Rossman</author>
	<datestamp>1262788080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Do you think the average consumer even has a clue about this issue?"

No.  And they don't care, and can't be made to care.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Do you think the average consumer even has a clue about this issue ?
" No .
And they do n't care , and ca n't be made to care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Do you think the average consumer even has a clue about this issue?
"

No.
And they don't care, and can't be made to care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678722</id>
	<title>Re:Would somebody think of the future of our data?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262796060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem with that is that clouds are run by companies, and no company lasts forever either.</p></div><p>That is not even remotely the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that clouds are run by <em>corporations</em>, and <strong>corporations last forever</strong>. Someone else can actually win the right of stewardship over your data as part of a <em>bankruptcy settlement</em>.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Is there any way to write data and then 10 years later get that same data back?</p></div><p>Sure, it's called DVDs from Verbatim, stored in a cool dark place. If you mean "on the internet" then the answer is to get web hosting, and move data from host to host as necessary (e.g. when they go out of business.) But of course, you've got to have some excellent encryption. Luckily that will cost you $0.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with that is that clouds are run by companies , and no company lasts forever either.That is not even remotely the biggest problem .
The biggest problem is that clouds are run by corporations , and corporations last forever .
Someone else can actually win the right of stewardship over your data as part of a bankruptcy settlement.Is there any way to write data and then 10 years later get that same data back ? Sure , it 's called DVDs from Verbatim , stored in a cool dark place .
If you mean " on the internet " then the answer is to get web hosting , and move data from host to host as necessary ( e.g .
when they go out of business .
) But of course , you 've got to have some excellent encryption .
Luckily that will cost you $ 0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with that is that clouds are run by companies, and no company lasts forever either.That is not even remotely the biggest problem.
The biggest problem is that clouds are run by corporations, and corporations last forever.
Someone else can actually win the right of stewardship over your data as part of a bankruptcy settlement.Is there any way to write data and then 10 years later get that same data back?Sure, it's called DVDs from Verbatim, stored in a cool dark place.
If you mean "on the internet" then the answer is to get web hosting, and move data from host to host as necessary (e.g.
when they go out of business.
) But of course, you've got to have some excellent encryption.
Luckily that will cost you $0.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30681692</id>
	<title>Re:Would somebody think of the future of our data?</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1262875920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>/me glances over at the bookshelf.</i></p><p><i>Yep, still there.<br></i></p><p>I backed up the videos from my vacation that way.  I hope you weren't using the Amazon for anything, cause I kind of used it all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>/me glances over at the bookshelf.Yep , still there.I backed up the videos from my vacation that way .
I hope you were n't using the Amazon for anything , cause I kind of used it all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/me glances over at the bookshelf.Yep, still there.I backed up the videos from my vacation that way.
I hope you weren't using the Amazon for anything, cause I kind of used it all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678932</id>
	<title>Re:I'm starting to feel old.</title>
	<author>OrangeCatholic</author>
	<datestamp>1262797980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;Is our view of privacy outdated?
<br> <br>
Not exactly.  Privacy is as important as it ever was.
<br> <br>
Without privacy, you cannot "pull off" anything vs anyone else.  You cannot be the first to market a product, because the competitors know what you're going to do.
<br> <br>
The lack of privacy is an <i>assault</i> on your being.  You have a right to your own <i>thoughts</i>.  You have a right to control the information that flows out from your body.
<br> <br>
Take a simple example.  My grandmother hated being photographed.  I have no photographs of her.  That was her choice.
<br> <br>
Privacy is nothing less than an extension of property ownership since we conquered the Indians.  If you take for granted that nobody can steal your CD player, then privacy is just the same.
<br> <br>
Kids these days are living in a loosely privatized online world for the sake of convenience.  It helps them make friends.  The idea that their privacy is important is not diminished by the ease with which we take it from them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Is our view of privacy outdated ?
Not exactly .
Privacy is as important as it ever was .
Without privacy , you can not " pull off " anything vs anyone else .
You can not be the first to market a product , because the competitors know what you 're going to do .
The lack of privacy is an assault on your being .
You have a right to your own thoughts .
You have a right to control the information that flows out from your body .
Take a simple example .
My grandmother hated being photographed .
I have no photographs of her .
That was her choice .
Privacy is nothing less than an extension of property ownership since we conquered the Indians .
If you take for granted that nobody can steal your CD player , then privacy is just the same .
Kids these days are living in a loosely privatized online world for the sake of convenience .
It helps them make friends .
The idea that their privacy is important is not diminished by the ease with which we take it from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Is our view of privacy outdated?
Not exactly.
Privacy is as important as it ever was.
Without privacy, you cannot "pull off" anything vs anyone else.
You cannot be the first to market a product, because the competitors know what you're going to do.
The lack of privacy is an assault on your being.
You have a right to your own thoughts.
You have a right to control the information that flows out from your body.
Take a simple example.
My grandmother hated being photographed.
I have no photographs of her.
That was her choice.
Privacy is nothing less than an extension of property ownership since we conquered the Indians.
If you take for granted that nobody can steal your CD player, then privacy is just the same.
Kids these days are living in a loosely privatized online world for the sake of convenience.
It helps them make friends.
The idea that their privacy is important is not diminished by the ease with which we take it from them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677896</id>
	<title>Re:Woah</title>
	<author>e9th</author>
	<datestamp>1262789100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The only reference to law enforcement in the letter concerns the FTC's own actions against businesses that violate privacy laws. Have they taken a position somewhere else regarding law enforcement agency access to data in the cloud?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reference to law enforcement in the letter concerns the FTC 's own actions against businesses that violate privacy laws .
Have they taken a position somewhere else regarding law enforcement agency access to data in the cloud ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reference to law enforcement in the letter concerns the FTC's own actions against businesses that violate privacy laws.
Have they taken a position somewhere else regarding law enforcement agency access to data in the cloud?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677780</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678456</id>
	<title>Mod parent up!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262793900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>+1 : willing to tell the uncomfortable truth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 : willing to tell the uncomfortable truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 : willing to tell the uncomfortable truth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677916</id>
	<title>A public well is easily poisoned</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262789220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>so the net change is that you'll have a harder time telling you've been snooped on</i>

</p><p>It's also easier to hide things you don't want to be seen.  GMail can turn over your emails, but if they're encrypted, even with <a href="http://www.fourmilab.ch/javascrypt/" title="fourmilab.ch">something simple</a> [fourmilab.ch], it will be harder to make it useful.  How many secret messages I have hidden in the pictures I email around or post online?  Who has the resources to check every one?

</p><p>Searches can be masked using TOR and private browsing. Again, not bullet proof, but it doesn't have to be.  Just enough to poison the data and make it unreliable. Go buy a pre-paid phone with cash and take the battery out of your regular cell phone at random intervals.  You're not trying to create a smoke screen, just sow doubt.

</p><p>That's if you're worried about it.

</p><p>Law enforcement may think search data and social media information is some kind of lucky charm, but it's pretty easy to spoil that data, leave false trails and really easy to hide things. If they gain confidence catching stupid people, all the better for those with a little clue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so the net change is that you 'll have a harder time telling you 've been snooped on It 's also easier to hide things you do n't want to be seen .
GMail can turn over your emails , but if they 're encrypted , even with something simple [ fourmilab.ch ] , it will be harder to make it useful .
How many secret messages I have hidden in the pictures I email around or post online ?
Who has the resources to check every one ?
Searches can be masked using TOR and private browsing .
Again , not bullet proof , but it does n't have to be .
Just enough to poison the data and make it unreliable .
Go buy a pre-paid phone with cash and take the battery out of your regular cell phone at random intervals .
You 're not trying to create a smoke screen , just sow doubt .
That 's if you 're worried about it .
Law enforcement may think search data and social media information is some kind of lucky charm , but it 's pretty easy to spoil that data , leave false trails and really easy to hide things .
If they gain confidence catching stupid people , all the better for those with a little clue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> so the net change is that you'll have a harder time telling you've been snooped on

It's also easier to hide things you don't want to be seen.
GMail can turn over your emails, but if they're encrypted, even with something simple [fourmilab.ch], it will be harder to make it useful.
How many secret messages I have hidden in the pictures I email around or post online?
Who has the resources to check every one?
Searches can be masked using TOR and private browsing.
Again, not bullet proof, but it doesn't have to be.
Just enough to poison the data and make it unreliable.
Go buy a pre-paid phone with cash and take the battery out of your regular cell phone at random intervals.
You're not trying to create a smoke screen, just sow doubt.
That's if you're worried about it.
Law enforcement may think search data and social media information is some kind of lucky charm, but it's pretty easy to spoil that data, leave false trails and really easy to hide things.
If they gain confidence catching stupid people, all the better for those with a little clue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678016</id>
	<title>I'm starting to feel old.</title>
	<author>starbugs</author>
	<datestamp>1262790000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With our lives stored on Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc. does today's younger generation even appreciate/want privacy?</p><p>Everyone knows who your friends are, what movies you like, that your cereal this morning looked like a smiley-face until your dog knocked it over.</p><p>Is our view of privacy outdated?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With our lives stored on Facebook , MySpace , Twitter , etc .
does today 's younger generation even appreciate/want privacy ? Everyone knows who your friends are , what movies you like , that your cereal this morning looked like a smiley-face until your dog knocked it over.Is our view of privacy outdated ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With our lives stored on Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc.
does today's younger generation even appreciate/want privacy?Everyone knows who your friends are, what movies you like, that your cereal this morning looked like a smiley-face until your dog knocked it over.Is our view of privacy outdated?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677722</id>
	<title>Niggers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262787900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod me down faggots.  Yeah I said niggers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod me down faggots .
Yeah I said niggers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod me down faggots.
Yeah I said niggers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678524</id>
	<title>Re:I was just thinking about this today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262794500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Scary thing though, this thing has GPS.  If someone really wanted to track me down they could.  Even without a cell phone plan or sim card in the device.</p></div><p>They can track you down due your cell transmitting its position (thats why 911 is possible). But, GPS is just a data receiver. Nobody can track you if all you had was a GPS device (sans mobile).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Scary thing though , this thing has GPS .
If someone really wanted to track me down they could .
Even without a cell phone plan or sim card in the device.They can track you down due your cell transmitting its position ( thats why 911 is possible ) .
But , GPS is just a data receiver .
Nobody can track you if all you had was a GPS device ( sans mobile ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scary thing though, this thing has GPS.
If someone really wanted to track me down they could.
Even without a cell phone plan or sim card in the device.They can track you down due your cell transmitting its position (thats why 911 is possible).
But, GPS is just a data receiver.
Nobody can track you if all you had was a GPS device (sans mobile).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679620</id>
	<title>Re:Don't you want target ads?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262806380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would rather see ads for products I'm interested in than things I'm not.</p></div><p>I'd rather see no ads at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would rather see ads for products I 'm interested in than things I 'm not.I 'd rather see no ads at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would rather see ads for products I'm interested in than things I'm not.I'd rather see no ads at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677966</id>
	<title>Re:use encryption</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1262789520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because the vast majority of data that is in the cloud isn't encrypted at all. The concern here isn't what the paranoid crypto geeks like you or me are doing (and even then there's always  the truth about that <a href="http://xkcd.com/538/" title="xkcd.com">http://xkcd.com/538/</a> [xkcd.com]). The concern from the FTC is that people don't realize that their unencrypted data is easily accessible to large companies. The FTC's job isn't to be worried about the nerds but to be worried about what the general population knows about. Whether a tiny fraction of the population is using encryption doesn't impact the FTC's concerns at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the vast majority of data that is in the cloud is n't encrypted at all .
The concern here is n't what the paranoid crypto geeks like you or me are doing ( and even then there 's always the truth about that http : //xkcd.com/538/ [ xkcd.com ] ) .
The concern from the FTC is that people do n't realize that their unencrypted data is easily accessible to large companies .
The FTC 's job is n't to be worried about the nerds but to be worried about what the general population knows about .
Whether a tiny fraction of the population is using encryption does n't impact the FTC 's concerns at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the vast majority of data that is in the cloud isn't encrypted at all.
The concern here isn't what the paranoid crypto geeks like you or me are doing (and even then there's always  the truth about that http://xkcd.com/538/ [xkcd.com]).
The concern from the FTC is that people don't realize that their unencrypted data is easily accessible to large companies.
The FTC's job isn't to be worried about the nerds but to be worried about what the general population knows about.
Whether a tiny fraction of the population is using encryption doesn't impact the FTC's concerns at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678066</id>
	<title>Google's domination makes this much worse.</title>
	<author>doug20r</author>
	<datestamp>1262790360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google reserves their right to suspend services for any reason in most of their terms and they do exercise this right by suspending people for life from the use of their services.  Becoming dependant on Google's services, or being dependant on a market they dominate, leads to a large penalty and damage when services are suspended.  Google will suspend services based on their suspicion alone, and clearly use data collected to make decisions.  Their investigations are held in secret, based on secret information, giving the victim no chance to defend it, and this is not fair treatment.  It has become so bad that employers are asking job applicants if they have ever been suspended from Google services to avoid the risk that Google will suspend the employers services.  Clearly something needs to be done, but what can they really do?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google reserves their right to suspend services for any reason in most of their terms and they do exercise this right by suspending people for life from the use of their services .
Becoming dependant on Google 's services , or being dependant on a market they dominate , leads to a large penalty and damage when services are suspended .
Google will suspend services based on their suspicion alone , and clearly use data collected to make decisions .
Their investigations are held in secret , based on secret information , giving the victim no chance to defend it , and this is not fair treatment .
It has become so bad that employers are asking job applicants if they have ever been suspended from Google services to avoid the risk that Google will suspend the employers services .
Clearly something needs to be done , but what can they really do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google reserves their right to suspend services for any reason in most of their terms and they do exercise this right by suspending people for life from the use of their services.
Becoming dependant on Google's services, or being dependant on a market they dominate, leads to a large penalty and damage when services are suspended.
Google will suspend services based on their suspicion alone, and clearly use data collected to make decisions.
Their investigations are held in secret, based on secret information, giving the victim no chance to defend it, and this is not fair treatment.
It has become so bad that employers are asking job applicants if they have ever been suspended from Google services to avoid the risk that Google will suspend the employers services.
Clearly something needs to be done, but what can they really do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679314</id>
	<title>Re:I'm starting to feel old.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262802360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With our lives stored on Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc. does today's younger generation even appreciate/want privacy?</p><p>Everyone knows who your friends are, what movies you like, that your cereal this morning looked like a smiley-face until your dog knocked it over.</p><p>Is our view of privacy outdated?</p></div><p>Hell no. Just because a lot of people are idiots doesn't mean I have to be one too.</p><p>In fact, I don't really care if the vast majority of people openly share their private lives, because that just means that the people who WANT to find out about private lives don't have to TRY HARD to get what they want. Which means:</p><p>*I* don't have to try hard to HIDE my private life from those same people.</p><p>Think about it, all you have to do is make it unprofitable (literally or figuratively) to pry into your private data RELATIVE to the majority. Then you'll be left alone, because why bother going after the guy in the back when you have millions lining up on your front door waiting to give you every detail about themselves?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With our lives stored on Facebook , MySpace , Twitter , etc .
does today 's younger generation even appreciate/want privacy ? Everyone knows who your friends are , what movies you like , that your cereal this morning looked like a smiley-face until your dog knocked it over.Is our view of privacy outdated ? Hell no .
Just because a lot of people are idiots does n't mean I have to be one too.In fact , I do n't really care if the vast majority of people openly share their private lives , because that just means that the people who WANT to find out about private lives do n't have to TRY HARD to get what they want .
Which means : * I * do n't have to try hard to HIDE my private life from those same people.Think about it , all you have to do is make it unprofitable ( literally or figuratively ) to pry into your private data RELATIVE to the majority .
Then you 'll be left alone , because why bother going after the guy in the back when you have millions lining up on your front door waiting to give you every detail about themselves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With our lives stored on Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc.
does today's younger generation even appreciate/want privacy?Everyone knows who your friends are, what movies you like, that your cereal this morning looked like a smiley-face until your dog knocked it over.Is our view of privacy outdated?Hell no.
Just because a lot of people are idiots doesn't mean I have to be one too.In fact, I don't really care if the vast majority of people openly share their private lives, because that just means that the people who WANT to find out about private lives don't have to TRY HARD to get what they want.
Which means:*I* don't have to try hard to HIDE my private life from those same people.Think about it, all you have to do is make it unprofitable (literally or figuratively) to pry into your private data RELATIVE to the majority.
Then you'll be left alone, because why bother going after the guy in the back when you have millions lining up on your front door waiting to give you every detail about themselves?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30683096</id>
	<title>Re:I'm starting to feel old.</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1262882820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As is usual, as you get older, you start to have romanticized outlook at the past, seeing it through rose colored glasses. There was never much privacy to speak of against some slice of society if you wanted to live in it.</p><p>Now the notions of what makes societal groups are simply changing; they broadened quite a bit.</p><p>Actually those "youngsters" have a much more control over <i>what</i>, in relation to what's possible, they reveal than most people in history of mankind. And much greater freedom in pursuing what activities, thoughts they want for themselves. Which kinda enhances privacy, IMHO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As is usual , as you get older , you start to have romanticized outlook at the past , seeing it through rose colored glasses .
There was never much privacy to speak of against some slice of society if you wanted to live in it.Now the notions of what makes societal groups are simply changing ; they broadened quite a bit.Actually those " youngsters " have a much more control over what , in relation to what 's possible , they reveal than most people in history of mankind .
And much greater freedom in pursuing what activities , thoughts they want for themselves .
Which kinda enhances privacy , IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As is usual, as you get older, you start to have romanticized outlook at the past, seeing it through rose colored glasses.
There was never much privacy to speak of against some slice of society if you wanted to live in it.Now the notions of what makes societal groups are simply changing; they broadened quite a bit.Actually those "youngsters" have a much more control over what, in relation to what's possible, they reveal than most people in history of mankind.
And much greater freedom in pursuing what activities, thoughts they want for themselves.
Which kinda enhances privacy, IMHO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30682782</id>
	<title>Re:They can know about you, do you know about them</title>
	<author>Ltap</author>
	<datestamp>1262881740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to see someone trying to microwave data held in a cloud...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see someone trying to microwave data held in a cloud.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see someone trying to microwave data held in a cloud...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679290</id>
	<title>My metric is WSJ's Walt Mossberg</title>
	<author>Flexagon</author>
	<datestamp>1262802060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He has reviewed cloud backup and other services, yet never mentioned the legal differences between cloud based service storage and storage on your own in-house machine. That indicates that it's not interesting to his audience, which is telling. NPR recently did an <a href="http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/01/01/mm-emails/" title="publicradio.org">article</a> [publicradio.org] on how the domain holder of your email service is noticed by your potential job interviewer. Their comparison was between Yahoo! and of course AOL on one side (you're a LUser), and GMail on the other. Guess whose privacy actually suffers the most.  This is definitely not understood.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He has reviewed cloud backup and other services , yet never mentioned the legal differences between cloud based service storage and storage on your own in-house machine .
That indicates that it 's not interesting to his audience , which is telling .
NPR recently did an article [ publicradio.org ] on how the domain holder of your email service is noticed by your potential job interviewer .
Their comparison was between Yahoo !
and of course AOL on one side ( you 're a LUser ) , and GMail on the other .
Guess whose privacy actually suffers the most .
This is definitely not understood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He has reviewed cloud backup and other services, yet never mentioned the legal differences between cloud based service storage and storage on your own in-house machine.
That indicates that it's not interesting to his audience, which is telling.
NPR recently did an article [publicradio.org] on how the domain holder of your email service is noticed by your potential job interviewer.
Their comparison was between Yahoo!
and of course AOL on one side (you're a LUser), and GMail on the other.
Guess whose privacy actually suffers the most.
This is definitely not understood.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677746</id>
	<title>We'll be right back after this from the cloud.</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1262788020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most cloud services these days are funded by companies who have ad interests too. Google has the web's largest ad network, Amazon loves to sell things, Microsoft has an ad platform too. Will what you post on MySpace suddenly influence which ad you see when you're watching Fox? Should it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most cloud services these days are funded by companies who have ad interests too .
Google has the web 's largest ad network , Amazon loves to sell things , Microsoft has an ad platform too .
Will what you post on MySpace suddenly influence which ad you see when you 're watching Fox ?
Should it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most cloud services these days are funded by companies who have ad interests too.
Google has the web's largest ad network, Amazon loves to sell things, Microsoft has an ad platform too.
Will what you post on MySpace suddenly influence which ad you see when you're watching Fox?
Should it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679462</id>
	<title>Storing your data in the, "Cloud".</title>
	<author>motherjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1262803920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Storing your data in the, "Cloud", is the IT equivalent to putting your most prized valuables in the local Greyhound bus locker. I also don't see much difference in using a Cloud service and folks who create, send, and store sensitive email via hotmail or gmail and then act surprised or upset when there is breach.</p><p>IMHO</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Storing your data in the , " Cloud " , is the IT equivalent to putting your most prized valuables in the local Greyhound bus locker .
I also do n't see much difference in using a Cloud service and folks who create , send , and store sensitive email via hotmail or gmail and then act surprised or upset when there is breach.IMHO</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Storing your data in the, "Cloud", is the IT equivalent to putting your most prized valuables in the local Greyhound bus locker.
I also don't see much difference in using a Cloud service and folks who create, send, and store sensitive email via hotmail or gmail and then act surprised or upset when there is breach.IMHO</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678172</id>
	<title>Re:Would somebody think of the future of our data?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262791440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Is there any way to write data and then 10 years later get that same data back?</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/me glances over at the bookshelf.</p><p>Yep, still there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any way to write data and then 10 years later get that same data back ?
/me glances over at the bookshelf.Yep , still there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any way to write data and then 10 years later get that same data back?
/me glances over at the bookshelf.Yep, still there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30680004</id>
	<title>Re:Would somebody think of the future of our data?</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1262854980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Is there any way to write data and then 10 years later get that same data back?</i></p><p>Yes. I call it MRBAM. Multiple Redundant Backup At Mother's.</p><p>For important data, photos etc, I keep a copy locally. Periodically I dump the data to another hard drive. One goes at my mother's house. One stays local. Every few years I buy more disks and copy drive to drive off a backup. I don't erase the old ones.</p><p>Co-incidentally I have exactly 10 years worth of photos. Haven't lost one yet. Latest drives are Terabyte size and are half full. (I don't delete pictures, even test pictures).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any way to write data and then 10 years later get that same data back ? Yes .
I call it MRBAM .
Multiple Redundant Backup At Mother 's.For important data , photos etc , I keep a copy locally .
Periodically I dump the data to another hard drive .
One goes at my mother 's house .
One stays local .
Every few years I buy more disks and copy drive to drive off a backup .
I do n't erase the old ones.Co-incidentally I have exactly 10 years worth of photos .
Have n't lost one yet .
Latest drives are Terabyte size and are half full .
( I do n't delete pictures , even test pictures ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any way to write data and then 10 years later get that same data back?Yes.
I call it MRBAM.
Multiple Redundant Backup At Mother's.For important data, photos etc, I keep a copy locally.
Periodically I dump the data to another hard drive.
One goes at my mother's house.
One stays local.
Every few years I buy more disks and copy drive to drive off a backup.
I don't erase the old ones.Co-incidentally I have exactly 10 years worth of photos.
Haven't lost one yet.
Latest drives are Terabyte size and are half full.
(I don't delete pictures, even test pictures).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679910</id>
	<title>Re:A public well is easily poisoned</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262896620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Go buy a pre-paid phone with cash and take the battery out of your regular cell phone at random intervals. You're not trying to create a smoke screen, just sow doubt.</p></div><p>Ha, so my LG Env2's loose battery connection is not a bug: it's a feature!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go buy a pre-paid phone with cash and take the battery out of your regular cell phone at random intervals .
You 're not trying to create a smoke screen , just sow doubt.Ha , so my LG Env2 's loose battery connection is not a bug : it 's a feature !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go buy a pre-paid phone with cash and take the battery out of your regular cell phone at random intervals.
You're not trying to create a smoke screen, just sow doubt.Ha, so my LG Env2's loose battery connection is not a bug: it's a feature!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30680912</id>
	<title>Re:They can know about you, do you know about them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262869200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well the thing about google's 'dont be evil' mantra is that they can tout it all they want....if the govt/law enforcement, wants the data, they have to give it<br>they can jump around and say its not us, but in the end they know more about you then you do<br>they know where you are, what you like, what you want, what you know, what you dont know, who you're talking to, and at what time...among other things<br>they have this massive store of information about almost everyone (assuming they corrolate usernames with ip addresses, which they say they dont do, but who knows if they will in the future)</p><p>there was a case in brasil where google was applauded for standing up to the government and saying 'no we wont provide information to you'....and that failed....but google was still applauded</p><p>google can be that big brother we never had in 84</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well the thing about google 's 'dont be evil ' mantra is that they can tout it all they want....if the govt/law enforcement , wants the data , they have to give itthey can jump around and say its not us , but in the end they know more about you then you dothey know where you are , what you like , what you want , what you know , what you dont know , who you 're talking to , and at what time...among other thingsthey have this massive store of information about almost everyone ( assuming they corrolate usernames with ip addresses , which they say they dont do , but who knows if they will in the future ) there was a case in brasil where google was applauded for standing up to the government and saying 'no we wont provide information to you'....and that failed....but google was still applaudedgoogle can be that big brother we never had in 84</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well the thing about google's 'dont be evil' mantra is that they can tout it all they want....if the govt/law enforcement, wants the data, they have to give itthey can jump around and say its not us, but in the end they know more about you then you dothey know where you are, what you like, what you want, what you know, what you dont know, who you're talking to, and at what time...among other thingsthey have this massive store of information about almost everyone (assuming they corrolate usernames with ip addresses, which they say they dont do, but who knows if they will in the future)there was a case in brasil where google was applauded for standing up to the government and saying 'no we wont provide information to you'....and that failed....but google was still applaudedgoogle can be that big brother we never had in 84</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678832</id>
	<title>Re:I'm starting to feel old.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262796960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.</p><p>As a kinkster in a large metropolitan area, I can say that remaining safe, knowing people, and getting as much good information as possible is much easier with the rise of the internet.<br>Should law enforcement wonder why I bought knives, fire-making implements, rope, hangers, chains, heaven knows what, couldn't they surmise I'm doing something devious and come after me without my knowing, all under the guise of "security"?<br>If they get ahold of emails it could out dozens, maybe hundreds of people in the community, many with prominent jobs of great trust and responsibility.</p><p>Privacy is not outdated. The more information we have available to us, the more critical it is that we understand that those access it need privacy for many reasons.</p><p>What I do in my spare time is MY OWN BUSINESS. As long as it ultimately hurts no one, then "the law" should keep their mitts off!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No.As a kinkster in a large metropolitan area , I can say that remaining safe , knowing people , and getting as much good information as possible is much easier with the rise of the internet.Should law enforcement wonder why I bought knives , fire-making implements , rope , hangers , chains , heaven knows what , could n't they surmise I 'm doing something devious and come after me without my knowing , all under the guise of " security " ? If they get ahold of emails it could out dozens , maybe hundreds of people in the community , many with prominent jobs of great trust and responsibility.Privacy is not outdated .
The more information we have available to us , the more critical it is that we understand that those access it need privacy for many reasons.What I do in my spare time is MY OWN BUSINESS .
As long as it ultimately hurts no one , then " the law " should keep their mitts off !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.As a kinkster in a large metropolitan area, I can say that remaining safe, knowing people, and getting as much good information as possible is much easier with the rise of the internet.Should law enforcement wonder why I bought knives, fire-making implements, rope, hangers, chains, heaven knows what, couldn't they surmise I'm doing something devious and come after me without my knowing, all under the guise of "security"?If they get ahold of emails it could out dozens, maybe hundreds of people in the community, many with prominent jobs of great trust and responsibility.Privacy is not outdated.
The more information we have available to us, the more critical it is that we understand that those access it need privacy for many reasons.What I do in my spare time is MY OWN BUSINESS.
As long as it ultimately hurts no one, then "the law" should keep their mitts off!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677806</id>
	<title>Would somebody think of the future of our data?</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1262788500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All hard drives will fail eventually. Flash memory drives are starting to outlast them, but those will fail someday too. CD/DVDs age poorly. Nothing is safe in your house anyway.</p><p>So, a cloud with a big RAID where dead drives are replaced with no loss in a nice safe datacenter sounds like a nice option. The problem with that is that clouds are run by companies, and no company lasts forever either. Look at what happened to drive.com.... they were bought by AOL, and then thrown out. Users were given a couple of months to retrieve their data, after which everything was deleted.</p><p>Is there any way to write data and then 10 years later get that same data back?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All hard drives will fail eventually .
Flash memory drives are starting to outlast them , but those will fail someday too .
CD/DVDs age poorly .
Nothing is safe in your house anyway.So , a cloud with a big RAID where dead drives are replaced with no loss in a nice safe datacenter sounds like a nice option .
The problem with that is that clouds are run by companies , and no company lasts forever either .
Look at what happened to drive.com.... they were bought by AOL , and then thrown out .
Users were given a couple of months to retrieve their data , after which everything was deleted.Is there any way to write data and then 10 years later get that same data back ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All hard drives will fail eventually.
Flash memory drives are starting to outlast them, but those will fail someday too.
CD/DVDs age poorly.
Nothing is safe in your house anyway.So, a cloud with a big RAID where dead drives are replaced with no loss in a nice safe datacenter sounds like a nice option.
The problem with that is that clouds are run by companies, and no company lasts forever either.
Look at what happened to drive.com.... they were bought by AOL, and then thrown out.
Users were given a couple of months to retrieve their data, after which everything was deleted.Is there any way to write data and then 10 years later get that same data back?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30680416</id>
	<title>An abomination when you're forced to upload</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262861820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least when people willingly store something on the cloud, it's their choice.</p><p>I was shocked to find out that my school required children to transmit and archive high school academic papers on to servers with <a href="http://www.xssed.com/mirror/38685/" title="xssed.com" rel="nofollow">known security issues.</a> [xssed.com]</p><p>Getting other parents to understand the stupidity was a real challenge.</p><p>"Your school is forcing your child to transmit (in an unsecure fashion) and store their private school work PERMANENTLY to a service that will archive it, and has fundamental security issues.  Forever.  With <a href="http://turnitin.com/static/usage.html" title="turnitin.com" rel="nofollow">terms</a> [turnitin.com] that say that the company licensed to use your paper for their business purposes (i.e. sell it).   And you don't see an issue with that?"</p><p>My stance:  If the principal and teachers are willing to upload their high school papers onto these servers with security issues for all to see, then I'll consider letting my child  make their own choice in the matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least when people willingly store something on the cloud , it 's their choice.I was shocked to find out that my school required children to transmit and archive high school academic papers on to servers with known security issues .
[ xssed.com ] Getting other parents to understand the stupidity was a real challenge .
" Your school is forcing your child to transmit ( in an unsecure fashion ) and store their private school work PERMANENTLY to a service that will archive it , and has fundamental security issues .
Forever. With terms [ turnitin.com ] that say that the company licensed to use your paper for their business purposes ( i.e .
sell it ) .
And you do n't see an issue with that ?
" My stance : If the principal and teachers are willing to upload their high school papers onto these servers with security issues for all to see , then I 'll consider letting my child make their own choice in the matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least when people willingly store something on the cloud, it's their choice.I was shocked to find out that my school required children to transmit and archive high school academic papers on to servers with known security issues.
[xssed.com]Getting other parents to understand the stupidity was a real challenge.
"Your school is forcing your child to transmit (in an unsecure fashion) and store their private school work PERMANENTLY to a service that will archive it, and has fundamental security issues.
Forever.  With terms [turnitin.com] that say that the company licensed to use your paper for their business purposes (i.e.
sell it).
And you don't see an issue with that?
"My stance:  If the principal and teachers are willing to upload their high school papers onto these servers with security issues for all to see, then I'll consider letting my child  make their own choice in the matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30685354</id>
	<title>Snooping is less important than control...</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1262891700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Currently, to snoop on your data, LEOs must first obtain a search warrant or subpeona.
</p><p>
A private company, OTOH, is only bound by the TOS.  For example, (at one time) your gmail account can be disabled for "objectionable" or "illegal" content.  Which means that if law enforcement so much as informs Google that a given user is doing something illegal, or claims they are doing something "objectionable", Google is well within their rights to permanently disable the account.  As it is within their TOS, there is no legal recourse for the account holder.  As it was not done by government, there are no constitutional rights issues.
</p><p>
Imagine for a moment that you've worked hard gaining a political following for a particular cause.  After making hundreds of contacts, suddenly, your gmail access vanishes for "objectionable content" - someone complained you were racist, sexist, or, well, it doesn't matter, because Google owns the servers and doesn't even have to investigate the truth of the complaint.  Now you've been effectively disappeared from all of your political contacts, and, even if you do have a backup copy of their contact information, you're going to have to re-establish trust with them once again.
</p><p>
The powers that be cannot put someone in jail for exercising their free speech rights.  They can, however, ask their hosting provider to make them disappear, and in most cases, the hosting provider will comply without so much as whimper.  Almost every TOS allows disconnection or discontinuation of service for almost arbitrary reasons.
</p><p>
And what are you going to do about it?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Currently , to snoop on your data , LEOs must first obtain a search warrant or subpeona .
A private company , OTOH , is only bound by the TOS .
For example , ( at one time ) your gmail account can be disabled for " objectionable " or " illegal " content .
Which means that if law enforcement so much as informs Google that a given user is doing something illegal , or claims they are doing something " objectionable " , Google is well within their rights to permanently disable the account .
As it is within their TOS , there is no legal recourse for the account holder .
As it was not done by government , there are no constitutional rights issues .
Imagine for a moment that you 've worked hard gaining a political following for a particular cause .
After making hundreds of contacts , suddenly , your gmail access vanishes for " objectionable content " - someone complained you were racist , sexist , or , well , it does n't matter , because Google owns the servers and does n't even have to investigate the truth of the complaint .
Now you 've been effectively disappeared from all of your political contacts , and , even if you do have a backup copy of their contact information , you 're going to have to re-establish trust with them once again .
The powers that be can not put someone in jail for exercising their free speech rights .
They can , however , ask their hosting provider to make them disappear , and in most cases , the hosting provider will comply without so much as whimper .
Almost every TOS allows disconnection or discontinuation of service for almost arbitrary reasons .
And what are you going to do about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Currently, to snoop on your data, LEOs must first obtain a search warrant or subpeona.
A private company, OTOH, is only bound by the TOS.
For example, (at one time) your gmail account can be disabled for "objectionable" or "illegal" content.
Which means that if law enforcement so much as informs Google that a given user is doing something illegal, or claims they are doing something "objectionable", Google is well within their rights to permanently disable the account.
As it is within their TOS, there is no legal recourse for the account holder.
As it was not done by government, there are no constitutional rights issues.
Imagine for a moment that you've worked hard gaining a political following for a particular cause.
After making hundreds of contacts, suddenly, your gmail access vanishes for "objectionable content" - someone complained you were racist, sexist, or, well, it doesn't matter, because Google owns the servers and doesn't even have to investigate the truth of the complaint.
Now you've been effectively disappeared from all of your political contacts, and, even if you do have a backup copy of their contact information, you're going to have to re-establish trust with them once again.
The powers that be cannot put someone in jail for exercising their free speech rights.
They can, however, ask their hosting provider to make them disappear, and in most cases, the hosting provider will comply without so much as whimper.
Almost every TOS allows disconnection or discontinuation of service for almost arbitrary reasons.
And what are you going to do about it?
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678356</id>
	<title>Re:They can know about you, do you know about them</title>
	<author>neorush</author>
	<datestamp>1262793180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only a subpoena is needed to get a company to hand over data its called "subpoena duces tecum" basically it orders a person give physical evidence to the ordering court or face punishment.  Subpoena's are not the same as warrants, and because they are akin to a testimony they are very easy to have issued, and you do not need to be notified because they are often related to the authorities building a case against you, as opposed to something like a warrant, where YOUR physical property is searched.  Read the TOS, a company is within its rights to hand this over to the authorities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only a subpoena is needed to get a company to hand over data its called " subpoena duces tecum " basically it orders a person give physical evidence to the ordering court or face punishment .
Subpoena 's are not the same as warrants , and because they are akin to a testimony they are very easy to have issued , and you do not need to be notified because they are often related to the authorities building a case against you , as opposed to something like a warrant , where YOUR physical property is searched .
Read the TOS , a company is within its rights to hand this over to the authorities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only a subpoena is needed to get a company to hand over data its called "subpoena duces tecum" basically it orders a person give physical evidence to the ordering court or face punishment.
Subpoena's are not the same as warrants, and because they are akin to a testimony they are very easy to have issued, and you do not need to be notified because they are often related to the authorities building a case against you, as opposed to something like a warrant, where YOUR physical property is searched.
Read the TOS, a company is within its rights to hand this over to the authorities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677964</id>
	<title>Re:I was just thinking about this today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262789520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are really worried about it, don't accept phones from strangers.</p><p>If you can't manage that, take out the batteries.</p><p>If you continue to worry, smash the device to destroy the secret battery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are really worried about it , do n't accept phones from strangers.If you ca n't manage that , take out the batteries.If you continue to worry , smash the device to destroy the secret battery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are really worried about it, don't accept phones from strangers.If you can't manage that, take out the batteries.If you continue to worry, smash the device to destroy the secret battery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679312</id>
	<title>Re:use encryption</title>
	<author>toastar</author>
	<datestamp>1262802300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I own a hard disk the contents might appear random. This random data might be encrypted content or the disk may have come like that. If I upload a file to a cloud service every byte in that file is assumed to mean something, so otherwise why did I upload it?</p><p>There is less plausible deniability with cloud storage.</p></div><p>So therefore having a swap file makes your encrypted data more secure?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I own a hard disk the contents might appear random .
This random data might be encrypted content or the disk may have come like that .
If I upload a file to a cloud service every byte in that file is assumed to mean something , so otherwise why did I upload it ? There is less plausible deniability with cloud storage.So therefore having a swap file makes your encrypted data more secure ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I own a hard disk the contents might appear random.
This random data might be encrypted content or the disk may have come like that.
If I upload a file to a cloud service every byte in that file is assumed to mean something, so otherwise why did I upload it?There is less plausible deniability with cloud storage.So therefore having a swap file makes your encrypted data more secure?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677778</id>
	<title>Re:They can know about you, do you know about them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262788260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its much easier for them to fabricate evidence on a hard drive from your home.  At least the cloud keeps them honest about the contents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its much easier for them to fabricate evidence on a hard drive from your home .
At least the cloud keeps them honest about the contents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its much easier for them to fabricate evidence on a hard drive from your home.
At least the cloud keeps them honest about the contents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678634</id>
	<title>Re:I'm starting to feel old.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262795340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm old too.
<p>
Vernor Vinge's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows\_End" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Rainbows End</a> [wikipedia.org] is the only case I've ever seen made for the "new" notion of privacy.  Sounds like a pretty cool world in which to live, but I'm not convinced the real post-privacy world will end up anywhere near as cool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm old too .
Vernor Vinge 's Rainbows End [ wikipedia.org ] is the only case I 've ever seen made for the " new " notion of privacy .
Sounds like a pretty cool world in which to live , but I 'm not convinced the real post-privacy world will end up anywhere near as cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm old too.
Vernor Vinge's Rainbows End [wikipedia.org] is the only case I've ever seen made for the "new" notion of privacy.
Sounds like a pretty cool world in which to live, but I'm not convinced the real post-privacy world will end up anywhere near as cool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30684266</id>
	<title>Here's and Idea...</title>
	<author>bkissi01</author>
	<datestamp>1262887200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about the FTC just convinces the rest of the Government that we really need to change the third party doctrine to keep up with the growing use of the cloud? Oh wait, that would mean that law enforcement investigators would once again have to do real investigating instead of having their work handed to them on a silver platter without even needing a warrant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about the FTC just convinces the rest of the Government that we really need to change the third party doctrine to keep up with the growing use of the cloud ?
Oh wait , that would mean that law enforcement investigators would once again have to do real investigating instead of having their work handed to them on a silver platter without even needing a warrant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about the FTC just convinces the rest of the Government that we really need to change the third party doctrine to keep up with the growing use of the cloud?
Oh wait, that would mean that law enforcement investigators would once again have to do real investigating instead of having their work handed to them on a silver platter without even needing a warrant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678098</id>
	<title>No.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262790660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The average consumer cares about nothing more than having their immediate wants gratified.  Notice I didn't say *needs*.  And they are not willing to put in the effort to understand the consequences of their actions, either due to unintentional or willful ignorance.</p><p>This is not every consumer, but the average one.</p><p>There is no other possible way that I can explain American Idol.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The average consumer cares about nothing more than having their immediate wants gratified .
Notice I did n't say * needs * .
And they are not willing to put in the effort to understand the consequences of their actions , either due to unintentional or willful ignorance.This is not every consumer , but the average one.There is no other possible way that I can explain American Idol .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The average consumer cares about nothing more than having their immediate wants gratified.
Notice I didn't say *needs*.
And they are not willing to put in the effort to understand the consequences of their actions, either due to unintentional or willful ignorance.This is not every consumer, but the average one.There is no other possible way that I can explain American Idol.
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30680394</id>
	<title>More so for companies</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1262861460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A company that has it's data "in the cloud" is quite likelly exposed to the laws in other jurisditions/countries. Wherever the data is hosted, the local law enforcement authorities, based on the local laws can get a warrant to get that data out. This even if said company does not do business there.</p><p>Plenty of opportunities for the competition to file a lawsuit in the appropriate place and get valuable trade information during the "discovery process".</p><p>Bigger companies even have to worry about foreign intelligence services: there are plenty of know cases of intelligence services helping their country's companies with industrial espionage and if a company's data ends up in in a location within the reach of the intelligence services of a nation where a competing company has a strong influence, that data will likelly be quietly passed onwards to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A company that has it 's data " in the cloud " is quite likelly exposed to the laws in other jurisditions/countries .
Wherever the data is hosted , the local law enforcement authorities , based on the local laws can get a warrant to get that data out .
This even if said company does not do business there.Plenty of opportunities for the competition to file a lawsuit in the appropriate place and get valuable trade information during the " discovery process " .Bigger companies even have to worry about foreign intelligence services : there are plenty of know cases of intelligence services helping their country 's companies with industrial espionage and if a company 's data ends up in in a location within the reach of the intelligence services of a nation where a competing company has a strong influence , that data will likelly be quietly passed onwards to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A company that has it's data "in the cloud" is quite likelly exposed to the laws in other jurisditions/countries.
Wherever the data is hosted, the local law enforcement authorities, based on the local laws can get a warrant to get that data out.
This even if said company does not do business there.Plenty of opportunities for the competition to file a lawsuit in the appropriate place and get valuable trade information during the "discovery process".Bigger companies even have to worry about foreign intelligence services: there are plenty of know cases of intelligence services helping their country's companies with industrial espionage and if a company's data ends up in in a location within the reach of the intelligence services of a nation where a competing company has a strong influence, that data will likelly be quietly passed onwards to them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678194</id>
	<title>Two rules</title>
	<author>Jenming</author>
	<datestamp>1262791680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Backup your important data.<br>Encrypt your sensitive data.</p><p>These two steps are as important and effective with the cloud as they are with any other form of storage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Backup your important data.Encrypt your sensitive data.These two steps are as important and effective with the cloud as they are with any other form of storage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Backup your important data.Encrypt your sensitive data.These two steps are as important and effective with the cloud as they are with any other form of storage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30692016</id>
	<title>Re:Would somebody think of the future of our data?</title>
	<author>datadefender</author>
	<datestamp>1262944080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>YES - I have all my data on a Truecrypted drive on my PC. This drive is backed up up to 2 USB drives (Truecrypted) in an alternating fashion at least once a month using robocopy . One disk is with friends 20 miles away. I do read- tests on the USB disks every month to verify they are still readable. If that would fail (it never did) I would replace that disk (call it a manual RAID configuration).  Every 3 years or so a get a fresh set of disks simply because i need more capacity. The old disks I donate (after wiping them ). This scheme has worked for 12 years now and saved me after disk crash last year. Yes it does cost some money - not much though. The 1TB disk is 80&euro;, so are the 2 USB disks each. Refreshing the disks all 3 years means I spend 240&euro; every 3 years - comes out to 80 per year or 6.66&euro; a month. I gladly pay that money top be independant and have full control over my data.<br>Oh - any me "core data" is on a 16GB USB stick (Truecrypted) and on my keychain. So I have that data with me all the time - even when there is NO network connectivity.<br>Cloud access for "always on" requires a mobile broadband flat rate. That costs more then 6.66&euro; a month. I only need a cheap GSM contract.<br>So I argue that it is actually cheaper to store my data on my own devices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>YES - I have all my data on a Truecrypted drive on my PC .
This drive is backed up up to 2 USB drives ( Truecrypted ) in an alternating fashion at least once a month using robocopy .
One disk is with friends 20 miles away .
I do read- tests on the USB disks every month to verify they are still readable .
If that would fail ( it never did ) I would replace that disk ( call it a manual RAID configuration ) .
Every 3 years or so a get a fresh set of disks simply because i need more capacity .
The old disks I donate ( after wiping them ) .
This scheme has worked for 12 years now and saved me after disk crash last year .
Yes it does cost some money - not much though .
The 1TB disk is 80    , so are the 2 USB disks each .
Refreshing the disks all 3 years means I spend 240    every 3 years - comes out to 80 per year or 6.66    a month .
I gladly pay that money top be independant and have full control over my data.Oh - any me " core data " is on a 16GB USB stick ( Truecrypted ) and on my keychain .
So I have that data with me all the time - even when there is NO network connectivity.Cloud access for " always on " requires a mobile broadband flat rate .
That costs more then 6.66    a month .
I only need a cheap GSM contract.So I argue that it is actually cheaper to store my data on my own devices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>YES - I have all my data on a Truecrypted drive on my PC.
This drive is backed up up to 2 USB drives (Truecrypted) in an alternating fashion at least once a month using robocopy .
One disk is with friends 20 miles away.
I do read- tests on the USB disks every month to verify they are still readable.
If that would fail (it never did) I would replace that disk (call it a manual RAID configuration).
Every 3 years or so a get a fresh set of disks simply because i need more capacity.
The old disks I donate (after wiping them ).
This scheme has worked for 12 years now and saved me after disk crash last year.
Yes it does cost some money - not much though.
The 1TB disk is 80€, so are the 2 USB disks each.
Refreshing the disks all 3 years means I spend 240€ every 3 years - comes out to 80 per year or 6.66€ a month.
I gladly pay that money top be independant and have full control over my data.Oh - any me "core data" is on a 16GB USB stick (Truecrypted) and on my keychain.
So I have that data with me all the time - even when there is NO network connectivity.Cloud access for "always on" requires a mobile broadband flat rate.
That costs more then 6.66€ a month.
I only need a cheap GSM contract.So I argue that it is actually cheaper to store my data on my own devices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678564</id>
	<title>Re:I was just thinking about this today</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262794740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can it still make phone calls in Airplane Mode?  How about if its antenna is torn out?  I'm confident you could defeat the GPS if you can find its GPS ant and tear that out... or, just don't use it outside.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can it still make phone calls in Airplane Mode ?
How about if its antenna is torn out ?
I 'm confident you could defeat the GPS if you can find its GPS ant and tear that out... or , just do n't use it outside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can it still make phone calls in Airplane Mode?
How about if its antenna is torn out?
I'm confident you could defeat the GPS if you can find its GPS ant and tear that out... or, just don't use it outside.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678292</id>
	<title>Re:I was just thinking about this today</title>
	<author>iammani</author>
	<datestamp>1262792700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, FCC mandates it actually.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , FCC mandates it actually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, FCC mandates it actually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30681192</id>
	<title>Personal Cloud Computing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262872260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Web hosting is becoming so cheap its unbelievable.</p><p>So the only thing that is missing is a decent web application that is as easy to install as say Wordpress and allows you to privately host your e-mail, documents, calender etc on some hosting provider in the middle of nowhere.</p><p>The Google App suite (Mail/Docs/Calender) is nice and polished, but this does not mean it cannot be duplicated by an OS solution or even a company selling its own solution.</p><p>You could even implement client side (Javascript) decryption and encrypt everything on the hosting provider.</p><p>And yes I would buy something like this.</p><p>All the benefits of online access to my documents, but hosted on my own little part of the internet ; behind my ADSL line, in Texas or deep down somewhere in Russia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Web hosting is becoming so cheap its unbelievable.So the only thing that is missing is a decent web application that is as easy to install as say Wordpress and allows you to privately host your e-mail , documents , calender etc on some hosting provider in the middle of nowhere.The Google App suite ( Mail/Docs/Calender ) is nice and polished , but this does not mean it can not be duplicated by an OS solution or even a company selling its own solution.You could even implement client side ( Javascript ) decryption and encrypt everything on the hosting provider.And yes I would buy something like this.All the benefits of online access to my documents , but hosted on my own little part of the internet ; behind my ADSL line , in Texas or deep down somewhere in Russia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Web hosting is becoming so cheap its unbelievable.So the only thing that is missing is a decent web application that is as easy to install as say Wordpress and allows you to privately host your e-mail, documents, calender etc on some hosting provider in the middle of nowhere.The Google App suite (Mail/Docs/Calender) is nice and polished, but this does not mean it cannot be duplicated by an OS solution or even a company selling its own solution.You could even implement client side (Javascript) decryption and encrypt everything on the hosting provider.And yes I would buy something like this.All the benefits of online access to my documents, but hosted on my own little part of the internet ; behind my ADSL line, in Texas or deep down somewhere in Russia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679496</id>
	<title>Re:Would somebody think of the future of our data?</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1262804400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Allow me to correct a few points there. Shitty consumer hard drives wear out quickly. Good quality business class drives can last a scary amount of time, as the 200Mb WD I have sitting in a drawer will attest to. As for CD/DVD? Don't buy Best Buy or Staples brand and keep them in a cool dry place. I have 15 year old CDs and nearly decade old DVDs and they read quite well, thanks.</p><p>While I do agree in off-site backups, a couple of cheap 200Gb drives and USB enclosures equal a hell of a lot of data you can take off site. Put one at a relative's house, maybe another in a safety deposit box and your data is good to go. hell smaller drives are so cheap you can change them out every year for a new pair and it wouldn't cost enough to worry about. And most importantly <strong>you control</strong> the data. Just add Truecrypt and it doesn't matter where you store the drives nobody is getting at your stuff but you.</p><p>

Considering how cheap USB drives and enclosures are it is silly to place all your trust in "the cloud" when it is easy and cheap to have offsite backups of frankly huge amounts of data. What if your cloud provider goes tits up? What if they have "disgruntled employees"? What if their backup solutions aren't as robust as <em>you think</em> they are? That is a whole lot of ifs that are easily avoided by simply doing it yourself with cheap USB drives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Allow me to correct a few points there .
Shitty consumer hard drives wear out quickly .
Good quality business class drives can last a scary amount of time , as the 200Mb WD I have sitting in a drawer will attest to .
As for CD/DVD ?
Do n't buy Best Buy or Staples brand and keep them in a cool dry place .
I have 15 year old CDs and nearly decade old DVDs and they read quite well , thanks.While I do agree in off-site backups , a couple of cheap 200Gb drives and USB enclosures equal a hell of a lot of data you can take off site .
Put one at a relative 's house , maybe another in a safety deposit box and your data is good to go .
hell smaller drives are so cheap you can change them out every year for a new pair and it would n't cost enough to worry about .
And most importantly you control the data .
Just add Truecrypt and it does n't matter where you store the drives nobody is getting at your stuff but you .
Considering how cheap USB drives and enclosures are it is silly to place all your trust in " the cloud " when it is easy and cheap to have offsite backups of frankly huge amounts of data .
What if your cloud provider goes tits up ?
What if they have " disgruntled employees " ?
What if their backup solutions are n't as robust as you think they are ?
That is a whole lot of ifs that are easily avoided by simply doing it yourself with cheap USB drives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allow me to correct a few points there.
Shitty consumer hard drives wear out quickly.
Good quality business class drives can last a scary amount of time, as the 200Mb WD I have sitting in a drawer will attest to.
As for CD/DVD?
Don't buy Best Buy or Staples brand and keep them in a cool dry place.
I have 15 year old CDs and nearly decade old DVDs and they read quite well, thanks.While I do agree in off-site backups, a couple of cheap 200Gb drives and USB enclosures equal a hell of a lot of data you can take off site.
Put one at a relative's house, maybe another in a safety deposit box and your data is good to go.
hell smaller drives are so cheap you can change them out every year for a new pair and it wouldn't cost enough to worry about.
And most importantly you control the data.
Just add Truecrypt and it doesn't matter where you store the drives nobody is getting at your stuff but you.
Considering how cheap USB drives and enclosures are it is silly to place all your trust in "the cloud" when it is easy and cheap to have offsite backups of frankly huge amounts of data.
What if your cloud provider goes tits up?
What if they have "disgruntled employees"?
What if their backup solutions aren't as robust as you think they are?
That is a whole lot of ifs that are easily avoided by simply doing it yourself with cheap USB drives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30682918</id>
	<title>Re:They can know about you, do you know about them</title>
	<author>Ltap</author>
	<datestamp>1262882160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really, if they took your hard drive and wrote seekrit\_bomb\_plans.txt to your main partition, you could easily prove it wasn't you by comparing the date it was taken with the date the file was created. Any tampering would be fairly easy to detect - in fact, early filesystems were designed that way, so that the edit date would make it easy to track down who was using the system at the time, in case people had ideas about tampering.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really , if they took your hard drive and wrote seekrit \ _bomb \ _plans.txt to your main partition , you could easily prove it was n't you by comparing the date it was taken with the date the file was created .
Any tampering would be fairly easy to detect - in fact , early filesystems were designed that way , so that the edit date would make it easy to track down who was using the system at the time , in case people had ideas about tampering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really, if they took your hard drive and wrote seekrit\_bomb\_plans.txt to your main partition, you could easily prove it wasn't you by comparing the date it was taken with the date the file was created.
Any tampering would be fairly easy to detect - in fact, early filesystems were designed that way, so that the edit date would make it easy to track down who was using the system at the time, in case people had ideas about tampering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677962</id>
	<title>What about private companies?</title>
	<author>bezenek</author>
	<datestamp>1262789460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Side note: The article should have mentioned gmail.<br> <br>
Companies change.  Look at Sun Microsystems.  Suppose Google ends up needing money.  What is going to stop them from allowing me / your mother in law / the king of Sweden from paying to dig through all of the data they have related to you?  This might not be done directly through Google, but through a "nice, responsible company" which has paid for access to Google's data.  If Google makes the data available to other companies, who knows what those entities might do with it?<br> <br>
We need legislation and a way to verify compliance!<br> <br>
Of course, it would be good if the legislation also protected our data from the Department of Homeland Security, but I do not expect lawmakers to be able to do the right thing there anytime soon.<br> <br>
-Todd</htmltext>
<tokenext>Side note : The article should have mentioned gmail .
Companies change .
Look at Sun Microsystems .
Suppose Google ends up needing money .
What is going to stop them from allowing me / your mother in law / the king of Sweden from paying to dig through all of the data they have related to you ?
This might not be done directly through Google , but through a " nice , responsible company " which has paid for access to Google 's data .
If Google makes the data available to other companies , who knows what those entities might do with it ?
We need legislation and a way to verify compliance !
Of course , it would be good if the legislation also protected our data from the Department of Homeland Security , but I do not expect lawmakers to be able to do the right thing there anytime soon .
-Todd</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Side note: The article should have mentioned gmail.
Companies change.
Look at Sun Microsystems.
Suppose Google ends up needing money.
What is going to stop them from allowing me / your mother in law / the king of Sweden from paying to dig through all of the data they have related to you?
This might not be done directly through Google, but through a "nice, responsible company" which has paid for access to Google's data.
If Google makes the data available to other companies, who knows what those entities might do with it?
We need legislation and a way to verify compliance!
Of course, it would be good if the legislation also protected our data from the Department of Homeland Security, but I do not expect lawmakers to be able to do the right thing there anytime soon.
-Todd</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30682144</id>
	<title>Re:Two rules</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262878440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that when your data is "in the cloud" it isn't just data on their server. The data is in their server yes, but you cannot just access it. You can only access your data through their front-end, which is a web portal or such.</p><p>The attractive part of making a "cloud" service is that they can use and abuse generally available even GNU open source software and not tell anyone how they modified them. Your friendly cloud service provider may be in on the "no SQL" fad and they don't even have a database where you could get a simple dump, meaning that they don't allow you to access the data as telling how it is stored is their business secret. The point is that when they don't allow a simple dump of the data, migrating away from their service is much harder. The business idea is that it is easy to start using their service but it will be very hard to stop using it, if you want to keep the data you have so far accumulated.</p><p>For example there are some "cloud" start-ups that are making monitoring solutions: simple server availability or physical meter readings. For example they would like to sell you electric power meters and you would access the readings from their web portal. The won't be providing you a data dump of all the meters from the whole duration of time you have had them. You can only go to their portal and ask a graph of a specific meter and get a plot, or you can get this as an exel sheet. You cannot encrypt your data. If you want backups you need to do some scripting to get all the readings as exel sheets. When their server breaks down you cannot even use these backups to restore the state of your data on their server as the exec dumps are not something that you can import back into it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that when your data is " in the cloud " it is n't just data on their server .
The data is in their server yes , but you can not just access it .
You can only access your data through their front-end , which is a web portal or such.The attractive part of making a " cloud " service is that they can use and abuse generally available even GNU open source software and not tell anyone how they modified them .
Your friendly cloud service provider may be in on the " no SQL " fad and they do n't even have a database where you could get a simple dump , meaning that they do n't allow you to access the data as telling how it is stored is their business secret .
The point is that when they do n't allow a simple dump of the data , migrating away from their service is much harder .
The business idea is that it is easy to start using their service but it will be very hard to stop using it , if you want to keep the data you have so far accumulated.For example there are some " cloud " start-ups that are making monitoring solutions : simple server availability or physical meter readings .
For example they would like to sell you electric power meters and you would access the readings from their web portal .
The wo n't be providing you a data dump of all the meters from the whole duration of time you have had them .
You can only go to their portal and ask a graph of a specific meter and get a plot , or you can get this as an exel sheet .
You can not encrypt your data .
If you want backups you need to do some scripting to get all the readings as exel sheets .
When their server breaks down you can not even use these backups to restore the state of your data on their server as the exec dumps are not something that you can import back into it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that when your data is "in the cloud" it isn't just data on their server.
The data is in their server yes, but you cannot just access it.
You can only access your data through their front-end, which is a web portal or such.The attractive part of making a "cloud" service is that they can use and abuse generally available even GNU open source software and not tell anyone how they modified them.
Your friendly cloud service provider may be in on the "no SQL" fad and they don't even have a database where you could get a simple dump, meaning that they don't allow you to access the data as telling how it is stored is their business secret.
The point is that when they don't allow a simple dump of the data, migrating away from their service is much harder.
The business idea is that it is easy to start using their service but it will be very hard to stop using it, if you want to keep the data you have so far accumulated.For example there are some "cloud" start-ups that are making monitoring solutions: simple server availability or physical meter readings.
For example they would like to sell you electric power meters and you would access the readings from their web portal.
The won't be providing you a data dump of all the meters from the whole duration of time you have had them.
You can only go to their portal and ask a graph of a specific meter and get a plot, or you can get this as an exel sheet.
You cannot encrypt your data.
If you want backups you need to do some scripting to get all the readings as exel sheets.
When their server breaks down you cannot even use these backups to restore the state of your data on their server as the exec dumps are not something that you can import back into it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678256</id>
	<title>Actually, worse is the opposite</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262792280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where people who have no important, much less critical data, don't know much about computers, but are constantly told about the dangers of this and that.</p><p>They are afraid to store their data (you know their recipie book spreadsheet, etc.) in "the cloud" because of course Google employees will read it on their lunch break.  The same people are afraid to use their credit card online, even with Amazon or other big SSL encrypted sites.  They hear stories of danger, but they don't have online common sense to know what's safe, and what's not, so they abstain entirely.  Too much "The sky is falling" isn't helpful to those kinds of people.</p><p>We all know that Google and other companies are not going to typically rifle through your documents because:<br>a. You aren't that important - why you?<br>b. You are one person among billions of accounts - why you?<br>c. None of the sites trying to sell cloud services will risk their reputation over something so petty.  Google is selling gmail and google docs to thousands of large enterprise customers already.  Do you think they are going to risk revenue so easily?  No, of course not.  That's nothing to do with "being evil" or not, it's simple economics - they need people to trust them, which means they need to be trustworth in general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where people who have no important , much less critical data , do n't know much about computers , but are constantly told about the dangers of this and that.They are afraid to store their data ( you know their recipie book spreadsheet , etc .
) in " the cloud " because of course Google employees will read it on their lunch break .
The same people are afraid to use their credit card online , even with Amazon or other big SSL encrypted sites .
They hear stories of danger , but they do n't have online common sense to know what 's safe , and what 's not , so they abstain entirely .
Too much " The sky is falling " is n't helpful to those kinds of people.We all know that Google and other companies are not going to typically rifle through your documents because : a. You are n't that important - why you ? b .
You are one person among billions of accounts - why you ? c .
None of the sites trying to sell cloud services will risk their reputation over something so petty .
Google is selling gmail and google docs to thousands of large enterprise customers already .
Do you think they are going to risk revenue so easily ?
No , of course not .
That 's nothing to do with " being evil " or not , it 's simple economics - they need people to trust them , which means they need to be trustworth in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where people who have no important, much less critical data, don't know much about computers, but are constantly told about the dangers of this and that.They are afraid to store their data (you know their recipie book spreadsheet, etc.
) in "the cloud" because of course Google employees will read it on their lunch break.
The same people are afraid to use their credit card online, even with Amazon or other big SSL encrypted sites.
They hear stories of danger, but they don't have online common sense to know what's safe, and what's not, so they abstain entirely.
Too much "The sky is falling" isn't helpful to those kinds of people.We all know that Google and other companies are not going to typically rifle through your documents because:a. You aren't that important - why you?b.
You are one person among billions of accounts - why you?c.
None of the sites trying to sell cloud services will risk their reputation over something so petty.
Google is selling gmail and google docs to thousands of large enterprise customers already.
Do you think they are going to risk revenue so easily?
No, of course not.
That's nothing to do with "being evil" or not, it's simple economics - they need people to trust them, which means they need to be trustworth in general.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679520</id>
	<title>Re:Would somebody think of the future of our data?</title>
	<author>ccrasher</author>
	<datestamp>1262804820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>(Is there any way to write data and then 10 years later get that same data back?)

Yes. I may be old school BUT when I started programming circa 1980ish (before the invention of the commercial hard drive) we backed up our data from punched cards to punched tape and sometimes magnetic tape. I have kept all of my origional programs in a safe environment and 100\% of my data is just as readable and usable/executable as the day I created it. I would also bet that these programs/data will be 100\% intact and usable/funtional 100+ years from now barring an act of GOD which can conceivably destroy anything.
VHS tapes that are 20 years old all seem to work well. I wonder if DVDs etc will behave in a similar fashion after 20 years.
Did you know that movies are all backed up/archived on film so they will be guaranteed to be available 100+ years from now.
There are no newer advanced electronic methods to guarantee data preservation at this time. Anything electronic can and will always fail at some point.
I have a few programs that I wrote on an old Olivetti system in high school which I backed up on punched tape and these backups still work the same as the day they were created with 100\% of the data intact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Is there any way to write data and then 10 years later get that same data back ?
) Yes .
I may be old school BUT when I started programming circa 1980ish ( before the invention of the commercial hard drive ) we backed up our data from punched cards to punched tape and sometimes magnetic tape .
I have kept all of my origional programs in a safe environment and 100 \ % of my data is just as readable and usable/executable as the day I created it .
I would also bet that these programs/data will be 100 \ % intact and usable/funtional 100 + years from now barring an act of GOD which can conceivably destroy anything .
VHS tapes that are 20 years old all seem to work well .
I wonder if DVDs etc will behave in a similar fashion after 20 years .
Did you know that movies are all backed up/archived on film so they will be guaranteed to be available 100 + years from now .
There are no newer advanced electronic methods to guarantee data preservation at this time .
Anything electronic can and will always fail at some point .
I have a few programs that I wrote on an old Olivetti system in high school which I backed up on punched tape and these backups still work the same as the day they were created with 100 \ % of the data intact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Is there any way to write data and then 10 years later get that same data back?
)

Yes.
I may be old school BUT when I started programming circa 1980ish (before the invention of the commercial hard drive) we backed up our data from punched cards to punched tape and sometimes magnetic tape.
I have kept all of my origional programs in a safe environment and 100\% of my data is just as readable and usable/executable as the day I created it.
I would also bet that these programs/data will be 100\% intact and usable/funtional 100+ years from now barring an act of GOD which can conceivably destroy anything.
VHS tapes that are 20 years old all seem to work well.
I wonder if DVDs etc will behave in a similar fashion after 20 years.
Did you know that movies are all backed up/archived on film so they will be guaranteed to be available 100+ years from now.
There are no newer advanced electronic methods to guarantee data preservation at this time.
Anything electronic can and will always fail at some point.
I have a few programs that I wrote on an old Olivetti system in high school which I backed up on punched tape and these backups still work the same as the day they were created with 100\% of the data intact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678310</id>
	<title>Google are abstracting info-currency</title>
	<author>ElitistWhiner</author>
	<datestamp>1262792820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its soooo damn easy, to google,gmail, voice, maps, phone, etc... who cares?  Until you have to pay for access to your own info-sets, you won't know how much you value your privacy.</p><p>We are so screwed Google surpassed 1984 in a blink of an eye.  Only google's data can protect us from ourselves!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its soooo damn easy , to google,gmail , voice , maps , phone , etc... who cares ?
Until you have to pay for access to your own info-sets , you wo n't know how much you value your privacy.We are so screwed Google surpassed 1984 in a blink of an eye .
Only google 's data can protect us from ourselves !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its soooo damn easy, to google,gmail, voice, maps, phone, etc... who cares?
Until you have to pay for access to your own info-sets, you won't know how much you value your privacy.We are so screwed Google surpassed 1984 in a blink of an eye.
Only google's data can protect us from ourselves!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677766</id>
	<title>I was just thinking about this today</title>
	<author>t0qer</author>
	<datestamp>1262788260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My friend that works as google gave me a droid G3 phone for christmas.  I guess they all got the nexus this year so he was giving me last years present.  It doesn't have a SIM card in it, and I don't have it activated on a cell network.  I don't really have any intentions on doing so either.</p><p>I let my 4 year old daughter play with it.  There's a coloring book application called Zebra Paint.  Today though I hear the phone talking.</p><p>"Hello? Heloo? Emergency 911"</p><p>I guess even without a phone plan, you can still use these things for 911?</p><p>I politely told the 911 operator what happened.  He told me to be careful letting my girl play with it and that was that.</p><p>Scary thing though, this thing has GPS.  If someone really wanted to track me down they could.  Even without a cell phone plan or sim card in the device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My friend that works as google gave me a droid G3 phone for christmas .
I guess they all got the nexus this year so he was giving me last years present .
It does n't have a SIM card in it , and I do n't have it activated on a cell network .
I do n't really have any intentions on doing so either.I let my 4 year old daughter play with it .
There 's a coloring book application called Zebra Paint .
Today though I hear the phone talking. " Hello ?
Heloo ? Emergency 911 " I guess even without a phone plan , you can still use these things for 911 ? I politely told the 911 operator what happened .
He told me to be careful letting my girl play with it and that was that.Scary thing though , this thing has GPS .
If someone really wanted to track me down they could .
Even without a cell phone plan or sim card in the device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My friend that works as google gave me a droid G3 phone for christmas.
I guess they all got the nexus this year so he was giving me last years present.
It doesn't have a SIM card in it, and I don't have it activated on a cell network.
I don't really have any intentions on doing so either.I let my 4 year old daughter play with it.
There's a coloring book application called Zebra Paint.
Today though I hear the phone talking."Hello?
Heloo? Emergency 911"I guess even without a phone plan, you can still use these things for 911?I politely told the 911 operator what happened.
He told me to be careful letting my girl play with it and that was that.Scary thing though, this thing has GPS.
If someone really wanted to track me down they could.
Even without a cell phone plan or sim card in the device.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678772</id>
	<title>Re:Would somebody think of the future of our data?</title>
	<author>bky1701</author>
	<datestamp>1262796480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have CDs almost 20 years old that still run just fine, and these weren't exactly sealed in a moisture controlled vault; more like a cardboard box in a closet. With proper upkeep and some redundancy, MOST mediums will probably last much longer than 10 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have CDs almost 20 years old that still run just fine , and these were n't exactly sealed in a moisture controlled vault ; more like a cardboard box in a closet .
With proper upkeep and some redundancy , MOST mediums will probably last much longer than 10 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have CDs almost 20 years old that still run just fine, and these weren't exactly sealed in a moisture controlled vault; more like a cardboard box in a closet.
With proper upkeep and some redundancy, MOST mediums will probably last much longer than 10 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30688182</id>
	<title>Re:Two rules</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262862000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm, I guess my comments as anonymous coward don't get accepted even though they contained more that 1 line witty remark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , I guess my comments as anonymous coward do n't get accepted even though they contained more that 1 line witty remark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, I guess my comments as anonymous coward don't get accepted even though they contained more that 1 line witty remark.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679908</id>
	<title>Guys, guys...</title>
	<author>thegnu</author>
	<datestamp>1262896560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>relax. as long as you're not a marijuana-smoking jihadist, you have nothing to worry about.  good people never go to prison!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>relax .
as long as you 're not a marijuana-smoking jihadist , you have nothing to worry about .
good people never go to prison !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>relax.
as long as you're not a marijuana-smoking jihadist, you have nothing to worry about.
good people never go to prison!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678362</id>
	<title>One impotant difference</title>
	<author>hallux.sinister</author>
	<datestamp>1262793180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>rm -rf<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home/user/Important\ Data\ I\ Don\'t\ Want\ Anyone\ Else\ To\ Have</b>
<p>
is easier to execute on localhost.localdomain than on Googe's machines.
</p><p>
Before you mention forensic data recovery, consider the less-oft used option to the <b>rm</b> command:  --sledgehammer.
This can be run on your home-box, whereas it is much harder to do to Google's servers strategically placed in EMP-Hardened underground bomb-shelters.
</p><p>
Power is nothing without control.
</p><p>
~Hal</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>rm -rf /home/user/Important \ Data \ I \ Don \ 't \ Want \ Anyone \ Else \ To \ Have is easier to execute on localhost.localdomain than on Googe 's machines .
Before you mention forensic data recovery , consider the less-oft used option to the rm command : --sledgehammer .
This can be run on your home-box , whereas it is much harder to do to Google 's servers strategically placed in EMP-Hardened underground bomb-shelters .
Power is nothing without control .
~ Hal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rm -rf /home/user/Important\ Data\ I\ Don\'t\ Want\ Anyone\ Else\ To\ Have

is easier to execute on localhost.localdomain than on Googe's machines.
Before you mention forensic data recovery, consider the less-oft used option to the rm command:  --sledgehammer.
This can be run on your home-box, whereas it is much harder to do to Google's servers strategically placed in EMP-Hardened underground bomb-shelters.
Power is nothing without control.
~Hal</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677902</id>
	<title>All Muslims, read this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262789160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>FUCK MUHAMMAD!!! FUCK ALLAH!!! FUCK ISLAM!!!!<br> <br>your so-called brothers in afganistan are fucking 13 year old boys in the ass. how does allah feel about that shit?</htmltext>
<tokenext>FUCK MUHAMMAD ! ! !
FUCK ALLAH ! ! !
FUCK ISLAM ! ! ! !
your so-called brothers in afganistan are fucking 13 year old boys in the ass .
how does allah feel about that shit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FUCK MUHAMMAD!!!
FUCK ALLAH!!!
FUCK ISLAM!!!!
your so-called brothers in afganistan are fucking 13 year old boys in the ass.
how does allah feel about that shit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678654</id>
	<title>Re:I'm starting to feel old.</title>
	<author>winwar</author>
	<datestamp>1262795460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Is our view of privacy outdated?"</p><p>Probably.</p><p>We had the luxury of having that privacy because it was difficult to have that level of knowledge about most people.  That level of knowledge or lack of privacy tended to be limited to people living in small towns or people who came to the attention of large organizations/governments.  Thanks to the wonders of technology it has come to the masses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Is our view of privacy outdated ?
" Probably.We had the luxury of having that privacy because it was difficult to have that level of knowledge about most people .
That level of knowledge or lack of privacy tended to be limited to people living in small towns or people who came to the attention of large organizations/governments .
Thanks to the wonders of technology it has come to the masses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Is our view of privacy outdated?
"Probably.We had the luxury of having that privacy because it was difficult to have that level of knowledge about most people.
That level of knowledge or lack of privacy tended to be limited to people living in small towns or people who came to the attention of large organizations/governments.
Thanks to the wonders of technology it has come to the masses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678016</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678630</id>
	<title>Re:They can know about you, do you know about them</title>
	<author>number11</author>
	<datestamp>1262795340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Finally, yes, Google is in a scary position right now. Not only might they have access to your search results, but if you use Gmail then they have your email and if you use Google Docs then they have your documents. Right now, Google has a lot of access to a lot of data, which is exactly why people think their "don't be evil" mantra is so important. If Google chooses to abuse their position, they could cause a lot of problems. </i></p><p>Which is why running programs like TrackMeNot and SquiggleSR (Firefox extensions) is good.  They won't help with your mail or docs, but they'll muddy your search history pretty thoroughly.  I figure my LAN does a couple hundred thousand more-or-less random searches per year.  Somewhere in that haystack are my few hundred real searches.  Well, assuming I don't use a proxy or another search engine for those.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , yes , Google is in a scary position right now .
Not only might they have access to your search results , but if you use Gmail then they have your email and if you use Google Docs then they have your documents .
Right now , Google has a lot of access to a lot of data , which is exactly why people think their " do n't be evil " mantra is so important .
If Google chooses to abuse their position , they could cause a lot of problems .
Which is why running programs like TrackMeNot and SquiggleSR ( Firefox extensions ) is good .
They wo n't help with your mail or docs , but they 'll muddy your search history pretty thoroughly .
I figure my LAN does a couple hundred thousand more-or-less random searches per year .
Somewhere in that haystack are my few hundred real searches .
Well , assuming I do n't use a proxy or another search engine for those .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, yes, Google is in a scary position right now.
Not only might they have access to your search results, but if you use Gmail then they have your email and if you use Google Docs then they have your documents.
Right now, Google has a lot of access to a lot of data, which is exactly why people think their "don't be evil" mantra is so important.
If Google chooses to abuse their position, they could cause a lot of problems.
Which is why running programs like TrackMeNot and SquiggleSR (Firefox extensions) is good.
They won't help with your mail or docs, but they'll muddy your search history pretty thoroughly.
I figure my LAN does a couple hundred thousand more-or-less random searches per year.
Somewhere in that haystack are my few hundred real searches.
Well, assuming I don't use a proxy or another search engine for those.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30681448</id>
	<title>Re:What about private companies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262874360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What is going to stop them from allowing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.....the king of Sweden from paying to dig through all of the data they have related to you?</p></div><p>Not much, but I find comfort in the fact that he suffers from dyslexia.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is going to stop them from allowing .....the king of Sweden from paying to dig through all of the data they have related to you ? Not much , but I find comfort in the fact that he suffers from dyslexia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is going to stop them from allowing .....the king of Sweden from paying to dig through all of the data they have related to you?Not much, but I find comfort in the fact that he suffers from dyslexia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677962</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679994</id>
	<title>Not unless you're incompetent</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1262897880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A hard drive in your house is just as accessible as data in the cloud</i></p><p>Last I checked, a hard drive in my house is controlled by me and I decide on what security I put around it. If I stuff up, it's my stuff up. I have no such control over anything in "the cloud".</p><p>The whole buzz phrase just needs to die. "The cloud" is nothing other than short term rental and loan space on 3rd party machines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A hard drive in your house is just as accessible as data in the cloudLast I checked , a hard drive in my house is controlled by me and I decide on what security I put around it .
If I stuff up , it 's my stuff up .
I have no such control over anything in " the cloud " .The whole buzz phrase just needs to die .
" The cloud " is nothing other than short term rental and loan space on 3rd party machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A hard drive in your house is just as accessible as data in the cloudLast I checked, a hard drive in my house is controlled by me and I decide on what security I put around it.
If I stuff up, it's my stuff up.
I have no such control over anything in "the cloud".The whole buzz phrase just needs to die.
"The cloud" is nothing other than short term rental and loan space on 3rd party machines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30712666</id>
	<title>Re:They can know about you, do you know about them</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1263060420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, it DOES make it easier to access your data. First, a cloud services provider might willingly hand over your data without demanding a warrant at all, even if you would never agree to it yourself. They might also honor a request to keep quiet about it. It's certainly happened before and will likely happen again.</p><p>Second, it improves the chances for law enforcement to illegally access your data without getting caught. We'd all like to think police never break the law, but there's way too much evidence to the contrary.</p><p>Finally, It's easy to rationalize "cheating a little" on the scope of an unrelated warrant "while we're here", but breaking and entering to get your data would be more obviously over the line, especially since you'll likely know it happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , it DOES make it easier to access your data .
First , a cloud services provider might willingly hand over your data without demanding a warrant at all , even if you would never agree to it yourself .
They might also honor a request to keep quiet about it .
It 's certainly happened before and will likely happen again.Second , it improves the chances for law enforcement to illegally access your data without getting caught .
We 'd all like to think police never break the law , but there 's way too much evidence to the contrary.Finally , It 's easy to rationalize " cheating a little " on the scope of an unrelated warrant " while we 're here " , but breaking and entering to get your data would be more obviously over the line , especially since you 'll likely know it happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, it DOES make it easier to access your data.
First, a cloud services provider might willingly hand over your data without demanding a warrant at all, even if you would never agree to it yourself.
They might also honor a request to keep quiet about it.
It's certainly happened before and will likely happen again.Second, it improves the chances for law enforcement to illegally access your data without getting caught.
We'd all like to think police never break the law, but there's way too much evidence to the contrary.Finally, It's easy to rationalize "cheating a little" on the scope of an unrelated warrant "while we're here", but breaking and entering to get your data would be more obviously over the line, especially since you'll likely know it happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678430</id>
	<title>Re:I was just thinking about this today</title>
	<author>Shadow-isoHunt</author>
	<datestamp>1262793600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, they cannot. GPS is one way, receiving timestamps via radio transmitted via multiple transmitters, then it does some fun maths involving the speed of light, and relativity. It requires the cellular link to transmit it's location to 911 via E911 services, but with the default firmware of your phone they can't remotely turn this on directly as it's not part of the E911 functionality. In order for them to turn it on remotely, they need to push a firmware patch to the handset which disables any GPS icon indications, and enables the vendor-specific command set. On top of that they have to figure out which handset is yours, which is going to be hard without an associated account with a valid GSM provider in your area. However, if they had previous knowledge of your IMEI/ESN, they could use that to locate you as IMEI/ESNs are globally unique to each GSM handset.
<br> <br>
Also, the GPS is overkill since they can passively monitor your location via triangulation of your cellular link. This is the most likely method of monitoring, as it won't kill your battery life(tipping you off), it's passive requiring no interaction with the handset, it doesn't require the GPS chip to initialize and possibly download the GPS ephemeris if it's a cold start(which will take 40s minimum due to the 50bits/s).
<br> <br>
Also, they could theoretically do it without a warrant if they used their \_own\_ equipment and knew your CDMA code - anyone can listen in to any radio transmission in the US, though decrypting a GSM/CDMA signal may be illegal. No decryption is necessary though, as long as they know your timeslot(GSM's tdm)/code(cdma).</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , they can not .
GPS is one way , receiving timestamps via radio transmitted via multiple transmitters , then it does some fun maths involving the speed of light , and relativity .
It requires the cellular link to transmit it 's location to 911 via E911 services , but with the default firmware of your phone they ca n't remotely turn this on directly as it 's not part of the E911 functionality .
In order for them to turn it on remotely , they need to push a firmware patch to the handset which disables any GPS icon indications , and enables the vendor-specific command set .
On top of that they have to figure out which handset is yours , which is going to be hard without an associated account with a valid GSM provider in your area .
However , if they had previous knowledge of your IMEI/ESN , they could use that to locate you as IMEI/ESNs are globally unique to each GSM handset .
Also , the GPS is overkill since they can passively monitor your location via triangulation of your cellular link .
This is the most likely method of monitoring , as it wo n't kill your battery life ( tipping you off ) , it 's passive requiring no interaction with the handset , it does n't require the GPS chip to initialize and possibly download the GPS ephemeris if it 's a cold start ( which will take 40s minimum due to the 50bits/s ) .
Also , they could theoretically do it without a warrant if they used their \ _own \ _ equipment and knew your CDMA code - anyone can listen in to any radio transmission in the US , though decrypting a GSM/CDMA signal may be illegal .
No decryption is necessary though , as long as they know your timeslot ( GSM 's tdm ) /code ( cdma ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, they cannot.
GPS is one way, receiving timestamps via radio transmitted via multiple transmitters, then it does some fun maths involving the speed of light, and relativity.
It requires the cellular link to transmit it's location to 911 via E911 services, but with the default firmware of your phone they can't remotely turn this on directly as it's not part of the E911 functionality.
In order for them to turn it on remotely, they need to push a firmware patch to the handset which disables any GPS icon indications, and enables the vendor-specific command set.
On top of that they have to figure out which handset is yours, which is going to be hard without an associated account with a valid GSM provider in your area.
However, if they had previous knowledge of your IMEI/ESN, they could use that to locate you as IMEI/ESNs are globally unique to each GSM handset.
Also, the GPS is overkill since they can passively monitor your location via triangulation of your cellular link.
This is the most likely method of monitoring, as it won't kill your battery life(tipping you off), it's passive requiring no interaction with the handset, it doesn't require the GPS chip to initialize and possibly download the GPS ephemeris if it's a cold start(which will take 40s minimum due to the 50bits/s).
Also, they could theoretically do it without a warrant if they used their \_own\_ equipment and knew your CDMA code - anyone can listen in to any radio transmission in the US, though decrypting a GSM/CDMA signal may be illegal.
No decryption is necessary though, as long as they know your timeslot(GSM's tdm)/code(cdma).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677766</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678390</id>
	<title>Re:They can know about you, do you know about them</title>
	<author>Grimbleton</author>
	<datestamp>1262793360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simple: Don't keep anything important anywhere you can't control 100\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple : Do n't keep anything important anywhere you ca n't control 100 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple: Don't keep anything important anywhere you can't control 100\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678238</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726</id>
	<title>They can know about you, do you know about them?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262787900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>A hard drive in your house is just as accessible as data in the cloud, they just need a warrant. However, they have a hard time hiding the fact they took your computer, it's somewhat questionable whether you can detect they got a wiretap, and outright impossible to tell what they copied out of a cloud... so the net change is that you'll have a harder time telling you've been snooped on, but that won't make it any easier to do the snooping. If you have info, they can make you turn it over whether you want to or not. What's at stake here is whether you know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A hard drive in your house is just as accessible as data in the cloud , they just need a warrant .
However , they have a hard time hiding the fact they took your computer , it 's somewhat questionable whether you can detect they got a wiretap , and outright impossible to tell what they copied out of a cloud... so the net change is that you 'll have a harder time telling you 've been snooped on , but that wo n't make it any easier to do the snooping .
If you have info , they can make you turn it over whether you want to or not .
What 's at stake here is whether you know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A hard drive in your house is just as accessible as data in the cloud, they just need a warrant.
However, they have a hard time hiding the fact they took your computer, it's somewhat questionable whether you can detect they got a wiretap, and outright impossible to tell what they copied out of a cloud... so the net change is that you'll have a harder time telling you've been snooped on, but that won't make it any easier to do the snooping.
If you have info, they can make you turn it over whether you want to or not.
What's at stake here is whether you know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678056</id>
	<title>Re:use encryption</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1262790360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I own a hard disk the contents might appear random. This random data might be encrypted content or the disk may have come like that. If I upload a file to a cloud service every byte in that file is assumed to mean something, so otherwise why did I upload it?</p><p>There is less plausible deniability with cloud storage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I own a hard disk the contents might appear random .
This random data might be encrypted content or the disk may have come like that .
If I upload a file to a cloud service every byte in that file is assumed to mean something , so otherwise why did I upload it ? There is less plausible deniability with cloud storage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I own a hard disk the contents might appear random.
This random data might be encrypted content or the disk may have come like that.
If I upload a file to a cloud service every byte in that file is assumed to mean something, so otherwise why did I upload it?There is less plausible deniability with cloud storage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30681038</id>
	<title>Re:They can know about you, do you know about them</title>
	<author>PopeRatzo</author>
	<datestamp>1262870640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A hard drive in your house is just as accessible as data in the cloud, they just need a warrant.</p></div></blockquote><p>That part about the "warrant" makes all the difference in the world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A hard drive in your house is just as accessible as data in the cloud , they just need a warrant.That part about the " warrant " makes all the difference in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A hard drive in your house is just as accessible as data in the cloud, they just need a warrant.That part about the "warrant" makes all the difference in the world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30682164</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>Ardipithecus</author>
	<datestamp>1262878500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>marketing + wants  = needs</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>marketing + wants = needs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>marketing + wants  = needs</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678098</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30712666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30682782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30680912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30692016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30697306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30680004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30681062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30681692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678172
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30685822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30688182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30681642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677954
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30685354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30682918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30683096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30680416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678238
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30682164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30682144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30681038
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_2320207_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30681448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2320207.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2320207.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2320207.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30681448
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2320207.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30681062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2320207.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2320207.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2320207.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2320207.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678172
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30681692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678722
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30680004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30692016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30685822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2320207.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30683096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2320207.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2320207.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2320207.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30697306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30681642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677954
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2320207.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30679994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678238
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30680912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30682782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30680416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677778
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30682918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30712666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30681038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30685354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2320207.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30682144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30688182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2320207.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2320207.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30682164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_2320207.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30677902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_2320207.30678456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
