<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_09_1630227</id>
	<title>The Gradual Erosion of the Right To Privacy</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1263059280000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://moc.liamgtaoirelav.etep/" rel="nofollow">PeteV</a> writes <i>"There is an interesting article on the BBC's website based around research carried out by Dr. Kieron O'Hara of Southampton University. He points out that under British law, an individual's right to privacy is being eroded by the behavior of those who <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8446649.stm">have no qualms about broadcasting every intimate detail of their life online</a> (via social networking sites) because the privacy law is predicated in part upon the concept of a 'reasonable expectation of privacy.' I think his request 'for people to be more aware of the impact on society of what they publish online' is likely to fall on deaf ears, but in effect what he is saying is that the changing habits of the world-wide community of social networkers is likely to have an effect upon English law and how it is interpreted. Given that the significant bulk of social networkers are American, this might mean 'American behavior' could cause changes in the interpretation of English law (which is not to say English people don't also post their intimate details on Facebook)."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>PeteV writes " There is an interesting article on the BBC 's website based around research carried out by Dr. Kieron O'Hara of Southampton University .
He points out that under British law , an individual 's right to privacy is being eroded by the behavior of those who have no qualms about broadcasting every intimate detail of their life online ( via social networking sites ) because the privacy law is predicated in part upon the concept of a 'reasonable expectation of privacy .
' I think his request 'for people to be more aware of the impact on society of what they publish online ' is likely to fall on deaf ears , but in effect what he is saying is that the changing habits of the world-wide community of social networkers is likely to have an effect upon English law and how it is interpreted .
Given that the significant bulk of social networkers are American , this might mean 'American behavior ' could cause changes in the interpretation of English law ( which is not to say English people do n't also post their intimate details on Facebook ) .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PeteV writes "There is an interesting article on the BBC's website based around research carried out by Dr. Kieron O'Hara of Southampton University.
He points out that under British law, an individual's right to privacy is being eroded by the behavior of those who have no qualms about broadcasting every intimate detail of their life online (via social networking sites) because the privacy law is predicated in part upon the concept of a 'reasonable expectation of privacy.
' I think his request 'for people to be more aware of the impact on society of what they publish online' is likely to fall on deaf ears, but in effect what he is saying is that the changing habits of the world-wide community of social networkers is likely to have an effect upon English law and how it is interpreted.
Given that the significant bulk of social networkers are American, this might mean 'American behavior' could cause changes in the interpretation of English law (which is not to say English people don't also post their intimate details on Facebook).
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709080</id>
	<title>Re:Good Morning.</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1263069360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah because I'm sure all those people with 200+ friends are really friends with 200+ people.
<br> <br>
I'm sure I could sign up to MySpace and add 500 people as friends and get at least 100 of them to accept. That doesn't mean I actually have 100 friends.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah because I 'm sure all those people with 200 + friends are really friends with 200 + people .
I 'm sure I could sign up to MySpace and add 500 people as friends and get at least 100 of them to accept .
That does n't mean I actually have 100 friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah because I'm sure all those people with 200+ friends are really friends with 200+ people.
I'm sure I could sign up to MySpace and add 500 people as friends and get at least 100 of them to accept.
That doesn't mean I actually have 100 friends.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709494</id>
	<title>Privacy might be more of a luxury than a right</title>
	<author>serutan</author>
	<datestamp>1263029760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think many things we presume to be rights are simply things we've gotten used to because authority structures have never had a reason to take them away. For example, years ago we had the "right" to take sharp objects aboard airplanes. Did we ever really have that right, or did we just get away with it because until recently it wasn't a problem? The idea of public safety constraining individual behavior is almost as old as civilization, and seems to me like a much more basic principle than any individual right or freedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think many things we presume to be rights are simply things we 've gotten used to because authority structures have never had a reason to take them away .
For example , years ago we had the " right " to take sharp objects aboard airplanes .
Did we ever really have that right , or did we just get away with it because until recently it was n't a problem ?
The idea of public safety constraining individual behavior is almost as old as civilization , and seems to me like a much more basic principle than any individual right or freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think many things we presume to be rights are simply things we've gotten used to because authority structures have never had a reason to take them away.
For example, years ago we had the "right" to take sharp objects aboard airplanes.
Did we ever really have that right, or did we just get away with it because until recently it wasn't a problem?
The idea of public safety constraining individual behavior is almost as old as civilization, and seems to me like a much more basic principle than any individual right or freedom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708852</id>
	<title>Metasurvelliance?</title>
	<author>ebusinessmedia1</author>
	<datestamp>1263067740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that it's very difficult to stop the authorities from piling up so many invasions of privacy that by the time one gets started we have already lost many of those rights.
<p>
That said, think about the world we are moving into as described by Bill Joy, then Chief Scientist at Sun Microsystems, in a now-famous essay published in Wired Magazine.
<a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy\_pr.html" title="wired.com">http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy\_pr.html</a> [wired.com]
</p><p>
Joy's point is that in the near-long-term technologies will be available that won't take huge infrastructure or ultra-sophisticated terrorists to use against us in  ways that could be so devastating as to pose a threat to mankind in its entirety, including terrorists.
</p><p>
Joy's article wasn't  aimed at the terrorist scene; it was more about the coming onslaught of technology in ways that we had hardly yet imagined.
</p><p>
Yet, implied are factors that plainly lead one to think that the only way to ultimately protect human beings in a largely technologically run, networked environment will be to deploy universal surveillance - and even with that we will face large challenges.
</p><p>
My sense is that the only way through this is Democratic societies will be to deploy what I call "metasurveillance" policies that permit anyone, anytime, to go into the network, log on, and see where one was watched, why, for how long, for what purpose, etc. In other words, perfect transparency.
</p><p>
This is the only way, with the major problem that those who pose threats will also have access, if they are members of an open society that values privacy. It's going to be cat and mouse. The most difficult part of this is going to be keeping those who would do harm away from information that would inform them of their being watched. I don't know if this is possible.
</p><p>
All that said, given where we are headed (read the Joy article, it's still spot on), I don't see any other solutions other than universal surveillance. We are going to have to protect rights along the way, or else we'll end up destroying one of the basic tenets of an open society.
</p><p>
I would love to hear other ideas in this realm, because so far what I see is people (me included) arguing that personal privacy should not be taken away, but intuition and the works of others tell me that privacy will disappear for the reasons that I and others have mentioned.
</p><p>
There was a time when privacy was hard to maintain; think of small village life prior to the industrial revolution. It's only with the rise of large urban complexes that anonymity became nearly ubiquitous. We evolved in small tribal cultures where everyone knew mostly what you were doing, anyway. So, one *could* argue that the anonymity provided by large urban complexity is a new environmental variable that we have yet to adapt fully to, in ways that protect out participation in that environment, including the (urban, networked) environment itself.
</p><p>
The network places us in one, large big "city" - how do we protect that and maintain individual rights? That's the conundrum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that it 's very difficult to stop the authorities from piling up so many invasions of privacy that by the time one gets started we have already lost many of those rights .
That said , think about the world we are moving into as described by Bill Joy , then Chief Scientist at Sun Microsystems , in a now-famous essay published in Wired Magazine .
http : //www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy \ _pr.html [ wired.com ] Joy 's point is that in the near-long-term technologies will be available that wo n't take huge infrastructure or ultra-sophisticated terrorists to use against us in ways that could be so devastating as to pose a threat to mankind in its entirety , including terrorists .
Joy 's article was n't aimed at the terrorist scene ; it was more about the coming onslaught of technology in ways that we had hardly yet imagined .
Yet , implied are factors that plainly lead one to think that the only way to ultimately protect human beings in a largely technologically run , networked environment will be to deploy universal surveillance - and even with that we will face large challenges .
My sense is that the only way through this is Democratic societies will be to deploy what I call " metasurveillance " policies that permit anyone , anytime , to go into the network , log on , and see where one was watched , why , for how long , for what purpose , etc .
In other words , perfect transparency .
This is the only way , with the major problem that those who pose threats will also have access , if they are members of an open society that values privacy .
It 's going to be cat and mouse .
The most difficult part of this is going to be keeping those who would do harm away from information that would inform them of their being watched .
I do n't know if this is possible .
All that said , given where we are headed ( read the Joy article , it 's still spot on ) , I do n't see any other solutions other than universal surveillance .
We are going to have to protect rights along the way , or else we 'll end up destroying one of the basic tenets of an open society .
I would love to hear other ideas in this realm , because so far what I see is people ( me included ) arguing that personal privacy should not be taken away , but intuition and the works of others tell me that privacy will disappear for the reasons that I and others have mentioned .
There was a time when privacy was hard to maintain ; think of small village life prior to the industrial revolution .
It 's only with the rise of large urban complexes that anonymity became nearly ubiquitous .
We evolved in small tribal cultures where everyone knew mostly what you were doing , anyway .
So , one * could * argue that the anonymity provided by large urban complexity is a new environmental variable that we have yet to adapt fully to , in ways that protect out participation in that environment , including the ( urban , networked ) environment itself .
The network places us in one , large big " city " - how do we protect that and maintain individual rights ?
That 's the conundrum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that it's very difficult to stop the authorities from piling up so many invasions of privacy that by the time one gets started we have already lost many of those rights.
That said, think about the world we are moving into as described by Bill Joy, then Chief Scientist at Sun Microsystems, in a now-famous essay published in Wired Magazine.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy\_pr.html [wired.com]

Joy's point is that in the near-long-term technologies will be available that won't take huge infrastructure or ultra-sophisticated terrorists to use against us in  ways that could be so devastating as to pose a threat to mankind in its entirety, including terrorists.
Joy's article wasn't  aimed at the terrorist scene; it was more about the coming onslaught of technology in ways that we had hardly yet imagined.
Yet, implied are factors that plainly lead one to think that the only way to ultimately protect human beings in a largely technologically run, networked environment will be to deploy universal surveillance - and even with that we will face large challenges.
My sense is that the only way through this is Democratic societies will be to deploy what I call "metasurveillance" policies that permit anyone, anytime, to go into the network, log on, and see where one was watched, why, for how long, for what purpose, etc.
In other words, perfect transparency.
This is the only way, with the major problem that those who pose threats will also have access, if they are members of an open society that values privacy.
It's going to be cat and mouse.
The most difficult part of this is going to be keeping those who would do harm away from information that would inform them of their being watched.
I don't know if this is possible.
All that said, given where we are headed (read the Joy article, it's still spot on), I don't see any other solutions other than universal surveillance.
We are going to have to protect rights along the way, or else we'll end up destroying one of the basic tenets of an open society.
I would love to hear other ideas in this realm, because so far what I see is people (me included) arguing that personal privacy should not be taken away, but intuition and the works of others tell me that privacy will disappear for the reasons that I and others have mentioned.
There was a time when privacy was hard to maintain; think of small village life prior to the industrial revolution.
It's only with the rise of large urban complexes that anonymity became nearly ubiquitous.
We evolved in small tribal cultures where everyone knew mostly what you were doing, anyway.
So, one *could* argue that the anonymity provided by large urban complexity is a new environmental variable that we have yet to adapt fully to, in ways that protect out participation in that environment, including the (urban, networked) environment itself.
The network places us in one, large big "city" - how do we protect that and maintain individual rights?
That's the conundrum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30744016</id>
	<title>Re:Good Morning.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263297000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fuck Myspace.<br>Fuck Facebook.<br>Fuck Twitter.</p><p>And a special "fuck you" to attention-starved fucks who use any of the above.</p></div><p>Ooh, don't forget slashdot, where you devulge your political views, stupid anectdotes and poor sense of humor to all your friends, coworkers and future business associates. So please don't stop; continue to the conclusion:</p><p>Fuck Slashdot and a special fuck you to the attention starved fucks who use it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck Myspace.Fuck Facebook.Fuck Twitter.And a special " fuck you " to attention-starved fucks who use any of the above.Ooh , do n't forget slashdot , where you devulge your political views , stupid anectdotes and poor sense of humor to all your friends , coworkers and future business associates .
So please do n't stop ; continue to the conclusion : Fuck Slashdot and a special fuck you to the attention starved fucks who use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck Myspace.Fuck Facebook.Fuck Twitter.And a special "fuck you" to attention-starved fucks who use any of the above.Ooh, don't forget slashdot, where you devulge your political views, stupid anectdotes and poor sense of humor to all your friends, coworkers and future business associates.
So please don't stop; continue to the conclusion:Fuck Slashdot and a special fuck you to the attention starved fucks who use it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708392</id>
	<title>Isn't it contextual?</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1263063600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's obviously true that if you post online \_you\_ have no reasonable expectation for privacy concerning what you post online.  But even if I post my most lurid secrets online but I intentionally keep other data protected on my machine, I implicitly have a reasonable expectation that that \_other\_ data is secret.</p><p>His line of reasoning reminds me of claiming that a rape victim who is promiscuous in her personal life therefore wasn't "raped" because she "wanted it".  She can screw every Tom, Dick, and Harry around the block but if she tells Duane "no" and he rapes her it's still rape in every sense of the word.</p><p>A reasonable expectation of privacy doesn't mean certain types of information are deemed to be not worthy of privacy protection because everyone else releases the data, it means that by the situations I put myself in and the actions I take can I expect MY data to be private.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's obviously true that if you post online \ _you \ _ have no reasonable expectation for privacy concerning what you post online .
But even if I post my most lurid secrets online but I intentionally keep other data protected on my machine , I implicitly have a reasonable expectation that that \ _other \ _ data is secret.His line of reasoning reminds me of claiming that a rape victim who is promiscuous in her personal life therefore was n't " raped " because she " wanted it " .
She can screw every Tom , Dick , and Harry around the block but if she tells Duane " no " and he rapes her it 's still rape in every sense of the word.A reasonable expectation of privacy does n't mean certain types of information are deemed to be not worthy of privacy protection because everyone else releases the data , it means that by the situations I put myself in and the actions I take can I expect MY data to be private .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's obviously true that if you post online \_you\_ have no reasonable expectation for privacy concerning what you post online.
But even if I post my most lurid secrets online but I intentionally keep other data protected on my machine, I implicitly have a reasonable expectation that that \_other\_ data is secret.His line of reasoning reminds me of claiming that a rape victim who is promiscuous in her personal life therefore wasn't "raped" because she "wanted it".
She can screw every Tom, Dick, and Harry around the block but if she tells Duane "no" and he rapes her it's still rape in every sense of the word.A reasonable expectation of privacy doesn't mean certain types of information are deemed to be not worthy of privacy protection because everyone else releases the data, it means that by the situations I put myself in and the actions I take can I expect MY data to be private.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708946</id>
	<title>Re:There's different things</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263068400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if one effectively gives up their privacy by posting something online, what gives the corporations the right to archive it? Yes, that goes for Amazon.com via their Alexa Internet Archive, DejaNews that later got acquired by Google, and any present or future company that somehow archives/caches the data instead of just indexing-only the content.</p><p>What that means? Okay, it's online, it gets indexed and a link is provided to it. No company stores it, except for the site it is hosted on. As long as the content owner leaves the content on there, it is okay to link to it. If the content owner takes it down, then hey it's gone.</p><p>Alternatively, if a corporation is going to archive content, then they should also be sharing any ad revenues associated with any ads served along with the content, sharing any donations received to help keep the archived content online, etc. You want my content for all eternity? That's an implied contrast you will revenue share for all enternity!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if one effectively gives up their privacy by posting something online , what gives the corporations the right to archive it ?
Yes , that goes for Amazon.com via their Alexa Internet Archive , DejaNews that later got acquired by Google , and any present or future company that somehow archives/caches the data instead of just indexing-only the content.What that means ?
Okay , it 's online , it gets indexed and a link is provided to it .
No company stores it , except for the site it is hosted on .
As long as the content owner leaves the content on there , it is okay to link to it .
If the content owner takes it down , then hey it 's gone.Alternatively , if a corporation is going to archive content , then they should also be sharing any ad revenues associated with any ads served along with the content , sharing any donations received to help keep the archived content online , etc .
You want my content for all eternity ?
That 's an implied contrast you will revenue share for all enternity !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if one effectively gives up their privacy by posting something online, what gives the corporations the right to archive it?
Yes, that goes for Amazon.com via their Alexa Internet Archive, DejaNews that later got acquired by Google, and any present or future company that somehow archives/caches the data instead of just indexing-only the content.What that means?
Okay, it's online, it gets indexed and a link is provided to it.
No company stores it, except for the site it is hosted on.
As long as the content owner leaves the content on there, it is okay to link to it.
If the content owner takes it down, then hey it's gone.Alternatively, if a corporation is going to archive content, then they should also be sharing any ad revenues associated with any ads served along with the content, sharing any donations received to help keep the archived content online, etc.
You want my content for all eternity?
That's an implied contrast you will revenue share for all enternity!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709400</id>
	<title>Depends what law - and America is different anyway</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1263028920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it depends what laws we're talking about. For civil invasion of privacy cases (TFA mentions the Mosley case, for example), I can see it making sense. Consider, someone takes a photo of you at a private party, and posts it online. You sue them for invasion of privacy because they refuse to take it down. I can see that this is far less likely to succeed, because there's a reasonable expectation these days that photos end up on the Internet (certainly, if you know someone's taking a photo, you should assume this, and ask them not to if you're not okay with that). I still don't think this is much of a concern - the Mosley case involved people intentionally secretly filming an S&amp;M scene, and then a newspaper publishing them those for profit. Just because people post party pics on Facebook, doesn't mean people post <i>those</i> kind of party pics on Facebook.</p><p>OTOH, I agree that it's ridiculous to apply this concept to the passing of new laws, or other cases. The BBC article is next to useless here - it's unclear what the academic actually said, and what is just opinion/speculation by the journalist.</p><p>I think it's also important to note that, AIUI, America has less in the way of privacy law. The Europe, it's part of the European Convention on Human Rights. In America, the balance between freedom of speech versus right to privacy is more likely to be weighed towards the former.</p><p>Indeed, I can't hope noting that whenever there are cases of the kind I describe - privacy versus free speech - the overwhelming consensus on Slashdot it in favour of allowing the images online, and against anyone who tries to sue them over privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it depends what laws we 're talking about .
For civil invasion of privacy cases ( TFA mentions the Mosley case , for example ) , I can see it making sense .
Consider , someone takes a photo of you at a private party , and posts it online .
You sue them for invasion of privacy because they refuse to take it down .
I can see that this is far less likely to succeed , because there 's a reasonable expectation these days that photos end up on the Internet ( certainly , if you know someone 's taking a photo , you should assume this , and ask them not to if you 're not okay with that ) .
I still do n't think this is much of a concern - the Mosley case involved people intentionally secretly filming an S&amp;M scene , and then a newspaper publishing them those for profit .
Just because people post party pics on Facebook , does n't mean people post those kind of party pics on Facebook.OTOH , I agree that it 's ridiculous to apply this concept to the passing of new laws , or other cases .
The BBC article is next to useless here - it 's unclear what the academic actually said , and what is just opinion/speculation by the journalist.I think it 's also important to note that , AIUI , America has less in the way of privacy law .
The Europe , it 's part of the European Convention on Human Rights .
In America , the balance between freedom of speech versus right to privacy is more likely to be weighed towards the former.Indeed , I ca n't hope noting that whenever there are cases of the kind I describe - privacy versus free speech - the overwhelming consensus on Slashdot it in favour of allowing the images online , and against anyone who tries to sue them over privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it depends what laws we're talking about.
For civil invasion of privacy cases (TFA mentions the Mosley case, for example), I can see it making sense.
Consider, someone takes a photo of you at a private party, and posts it online.
You sue them for invasion of privacy because they refuse to take it down.
I can see that this is far less likely to succeed, because there's a reasonable expectation these days that photos end up on the Internet (certainly, if you know someone's taking a photo, you should assume this, and ask them not to if you're not okay with that).
I still don't think this is much of a concern - the Mosley case involved people intentionally secretly filming an S&amp;M scene, and then a newspaper publishing them those for profit.
Just because people post party pics on Facebook, doesn't mean people post those kind of party pics on Facebook.OTOH, I agree that it's ridiculous to apply this concept to the passing of new laws, or other cases.
The BBC article is next to useless here - it's unclear what the academic actually said, and what is just opinion/speculation by the journalist.I think it's also important to note that, AIUI, America has less in the way of privacy law.
The Europe, it's part of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In America, the balance between freedom of speech versus right to privacy is more likely to be weighed towards the former.Indeed, I can't hope noting that whenever there are cases of the kind I describe - privacy versus free speech - the overwhelming consensus on Slashdot it in favour of allowing the images online, and against anyone who tries to sue them over privacy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710104</id>
	<title>Re:Don't see what the big deal is</title>
	<author>apoc.famine</author>
	<datestamp>1263036240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I tag that picture of the guy laying face down in his own puke "ModernGeek", it gets harder. When someone on Assbook does the same, and you haven't heard of the site, and never go there, it is even worse. <br>
&nbsp; <br>If you look at all the pictures taken of me in the last 6 months, 95\% of them are me at parties. Why? Because even though I hit a party a month, at the most, 30 other days a month I don't take a picture of me working diligently, acting professionally, performing open heart surgery or feeding starving orphans. If you look through the photos tagged as me in Facebook, they're almost all party photos, despite my minimal amount of partying. <br>
&nbsp; <br>It's not what YOU put on sites like this - it's what others put. </p><p><div class="quote"><p>If there were pictures I only wanted certain friends to see, I wouldn't use facebook to share them.</p> </div><p>Yes, but they might use Facebook, or some other social networking site to share those same pictures. <br>
&nbsp; <br>Those of us old and stable with solid friends in good relationships don't have to worry too much about that. But for your average teenager, it's a mire of backstabbing and petty revenges. Add in the rest of the population in messy relationships, with automatic login and openly known passwords, and it's a huge issue.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I tag that picture of the guy laying face down in his own puke " ModernGeek " , it gets harder .
When someone on Assbook does the same , and you have n't heard of the site , and never go there , it is even worse .
  If you look at all the pictures taken of me in the last 6 months , 95 \ % of them are me at parties .
Why ? Because even though I hit a party a month , at the most , 30 other days a month I do n't take a picture of me working diligently , acting professionally , performing open heart surgery or feeding starving orphans .
If you look through the photos tagged as me in Facebook , they 're almost all party photos , despite my minimal amount of partying .
  It 's not what YOU put on sites like this - it 's what others put .
If there were pictures I only wanted certain friends to see , I would n't use facebook to share them .
Yes , but they might use Facebook , or some other social networking site to share those same pictures .
  Those of us old and stable with solid friends in good relationships do n't have to worry too much about that .
But for your average teenager , it 's a mire of backstabbing and petty revenges .
Add in the rest of the population in messy relationships , with automatic login and openly known passwords , and it 's a huge issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I tag that picture of the guy laying face down in his own puke "ModernGeek", it gets harder.
When someone on Assbook does the same, and you haven't heard of the site, and never go there, it is even worse.
  If you look at all the pictures taken of me in the last 6 months, 95\% of them are me at parties.
Why? Because even though I hit a party a month, at the most, 30 other days a month I don't take a picture of me working diligently, acting professionally, performing open heart surgery or feeding starving orphans.
If you look through the photos tagged as me in Facebook, they're almost all party photos, despite my minimal amount of partying.
  It's not what YOU put on sites like this - it's what others put.
If there were pictures I only wanted certain friends to see, I wouldn't use facebook to share them.
Yes, but they might use Facebook, or some other social networking site to share those same pictures.
  Those of us old and stable with solid friends in good relationships don't have to worry too much about that.
But for your average teenager, it's a mire of backstabbing and petty revenges.
Add in the rest of the population in messy relationships, with automatic login and openly known passwords, and it's a huge issue.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708788</id>
	<title>Re:There's different things</title>
	<author>Grumbleduke</author>
	<datestamp>1263067020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We French have a law (roughly called "IT and privacy) that guarantees us the right to see and amend any data about us retained in computer form. I'm of half a mind to request my file from Google, for curiosity's sake.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga\_19980029\_en\_3#pt2-l1g7" title="opsi.gov.uk" rel="nofollow">Section 7 of the UK's Data Protection Act</a> [opsi.gov.uk] covers something similar but for any data - not just that held in digital form:</p><p>(1)....an individual is entitled&mdash; </p><ol><li>(a) to be informed by any data controller whether personal data of which that individual is the data subject are being processed by or on behalf of that data controller,</li><li>(b) if that is the case, to be given by the data controller a description of&mdash;<ol> <li>(i) the personal data of which that individual is the data subject....</li></ol></li><li>(c) to have communicated to him in an intelligible form&mdash;<ol> <li>(i) the information constituting any personal data of which that individual is the data subject, and</li><li>(ii) any information available to the data controller as to the source of those data,</li></ol></li> </ol><p>Effectively this means that any individual is able to have any data on them disclosed to them and there are further provisions for having the data corrected if it is inaccurate. However, the data controller responsible is entitled to charge for providing the data, (possibly planning to prevent mass-spamming of requests). All data controllers are required to be registered with the <a href="http://www.ico.gov.uk/" title="ico.gov.uk" rel="nofollow">Information Commissioner's Office</a> [ico.gov.uk] which has a database of all the data controllers (that is publicly searchable). That's also the reason why, at least in the UK, if somewhere as CCTV cameras they are legally obliged to have a large sign saying so and making it clear who has all the recordings etc.. The Data Protection Act is an impressively complicated piece of legislation, though, so there are lots of other requirements and get-outs (it consists of 8 pages of raw law and 12 pages of schedules).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We French have a law ( roughly called " IT and privacy ) that guarantees us the right to see and amend any data about us retained in computer form .
I 'm of half a mind to request my file from Google , for curiosity 's sake .
Section 7 of the UK 's Data Protection Act [ opsi.gov.uk ] covers something similar but for any data - not just that held in digital form : ( 1 ) ....an individual is entitled    ( a ) to be informed by any data controller whether personal data of which that individual is the data subject are being processed by or on behalf of that data controller , ( b ) if that is the case , to be given by the data controller a description of    ( i ) the personal data of which that individual is the data subject.... ( c ) to have communicated to him in an intelligible form    ( i ) the information constituting any personal data of which that individual is the data subject , and ( ii ) any information available to the data controller as to the source of those data , Effectively this means that any individual is able to have any data on them disclosed to them and there are further provisions for having the data corrected if it is inaccurate .
However , the data controller responsible is entitled to charge for providing the data , ( possibly planning to prevent mass-spamming of requests ) .
All data controllers are required to be registered with the Information Commissioner 's Office [ ico.gov.uk ] which has a database of all the data controllers ( that is publicly searchable ) .
That 's also the reason why , at least in the UK , if somewhere as CCTV cameras they are legally obliged to have a large sign saying so and making it clear who has all the recordings etc.. The Data Protection Act is an impressively complicated piece of legislation , though , so there are lots of other requirements and get-outs ( it consists of 8 pages of raw law and 12 pages of schedules ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We French have a law (roughly called "IT and privacy) that guarantees us the right to see and amend any data about us retained in computer form.
I'm of half a mind to request my file from Google, for curiosity's sake.
Section 7 of the UK's Data Protection Act [opsi.gov.uk] covers something similar but for any data - not just that held in digital form:(1)....an individual is entitled— (a) to be informed by any data controller whether personal data of which that individual is the data subject are being processed by or on behalf of that data controller,(b) if that is the case, to be given by the data controller a description of— (i) the personal data of which that individual is the data subject....(c) to have communicated to him in an intelligible form— (i) the information constituting any personal data of which that individual is the data subject, and(ii) any information available to the data controller as to the source of those data, Effectively this means that any individual is able to have any data on them disclosed to them and there are further provisions for having the data corrected if it is inaccurate.
However, the data controller responsible is entitled to charge for providing the data, (possibly planning to prevent mass-spamming of requests).
All data controllers are required to be registered with the Information Commissioner's Office [ico.gov.uk] which has a database of all the data controllers (that is publicly searchable).
That's also the reason why, at least in the UK, if somewhere as CCTV cameras they are legally obliged to have a large sign saying so and making it clear who has all the recordings etc.. The Data Protection Act is an impressively complicated piece of legislation, though, so there are lots of other requirements and get-outs (it consists of 8 pages of raw law and 12 pages of schedules).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30724002</id>
	<title>Re:A simple cure - if you can't beat 'em...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263229620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, just say "No"?</p><p>I know that the notion that a person may not want to sell something in this materialistic world is pretty crazy, but just because somebody wants to buy something you own, doesn't mean you have to sell it.</p><p>If you're willing to sell yourself into servitude though, hey, that's your choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , just say " No " ? I know that the notion that a person may not want to sell something in this materialistic world is pretty crazy , but just because somebody wants to buy something you own , does n't mean you have to sell it.If you 're willing to sell yourself into servitude though , hey , that 's your choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, just say "No"?I know that the notion that a person may not want to sell something in this materialistic world is pretty crazy, but just because somebody wants to buy something you own, doesn't mean you have to sell it.If you're willing to sell yourself into servitude though, hey, that's your choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709440</id>
	<title>Re:Apples and ornages</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1263029280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the distinction they are getting at here is somewhat more subtle than the distinction between facebook at peeping toms.  No one is arguing that because facebook exists now you can look in people's windows.<br> <br>
A crucial point here is that this is in England, which has an entirely different set of priorities than America, I think some people don't realize it.  This is why they call it 'American Behavior.'  In America, we tend to favor things like freedom, truth, and independence, whereas in England they tend to favor propriety, respect, and order.  I am not trying to say either system is better, but each side has made laws that reflect their ideals.<br> <br>
Thus in England laws are arranged so the truth is no defense against slander, and in America individual freedom is so valued that gun rights are protected, with often deadly results.  This has been an arrangement England has been happy with for many years, but with the closer international integration being felt everywhere, England is having to confront the changes in society that come along with that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the distinction they are getting at here is somewhat more subtle than the distinction between facebook at peeping toms .
No one is arguing that because facebook exists now you can look in people 's windows .
A crucial point here is that this is in England , which has an entirely different set of priorities than America , I think some people do n't realize it .
This is why they call it 'American Behavior .
' In America , we tend to favor things like freedom , truth , and independence , whereas in England they tend to favor propriety , respect , and order .
I am not trying to say either system is better , but each side has made laws that reflect their ideals .
Thus in England laws are arranged so the truth is no defense against slander , and in America individual freedom is so valued that gun rights are protected , with often deadly results .
This has been an arrangement England has been happy with for many years , but with the closer international integration being felt everywhere , England is having to confront the changes in society that come along with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the distinction they are getting at here is somewhat more subtle than the distinction between facebook at peeping toms.
No one is arguing that because facebook exists now you can look in people's windows.
A crucial point here is that this is in England, which has an entirely different set of priorities than America, I think some people don't realize it.
This is why they call it 'American Behavior.
'  In America, we tend to favor things like freedom, truth, and independence, whereas in England they tend to favor propriety, respect, and order.
I am not trying to say either system is better, but each side has made laws that reflect their ideals.
Thus in England laws are arranged so the truth is no defense against slander, and in America individual freedom is so valued that gun rights are protected, with often deadly results.
This has been an arrangement England has been happy with for many years, but with the closer international integration being felt everywhere, England is having to confront the changes in society that come along with that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30712558</id>
	<title>Re:A simple cure - if you can't beat 'em...</title>
	<author>uuddlrlrab</author>
	<datestamp>1263058500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As the sole subject of the corporate entity, you are Chief accounting officer, Chief administrative officer, Chief analytics officer, Chief brand officer, Chief channel officer, Chief compliance officer, Chief communications officer, Chief data officer, Chief executive officer, Chief financial officer, Chief information officer, Chief information security officer, Chief knowledge officer, Chief learning officer, Chief legal officer, Chief marketing officer, Chief networking officer, Chief operating officer, Chief procurement officer, Chief risk officer, Chief science officer, Chief strategy officer, Chief technical officer, Chief visionary officer, Chief human resources officer, Board of Directors + Chairman of the Board, all rolled into one. The decisions are all coming from the same place. If you have multiple personality disorder, well, then you have an excuse to worry, since there could be a hostile takeover. Unless, of course, you're the personality taking over, in which case, have a blast, take no prisoners, etc... I'll just be over here...far, far away, over here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As the sole subject of the corporate entity , you are Chief accounting officer , Chief administrative officer , Chief analytics officer , Chief brand officer , Chief channel officer , Chief compliance officer , Chief communications officer , Chief data officer , Chief executive officer , Chief financial officer , Chief information officer , Chief information security officer , Chief knowledge officer , Chief learning officer , Chief legal officer , Chief marketing officer , Chief networking officer , Chief operating officer , Chief procurement officer , Chief risk officer , Chief science officer , Chief strategy officer , Chief technical officer , Chief visionary officer , Chief human resources officer , Board of Directors + Chairman of the Board , all rolled into one .
The decisions are all coming from the same place .
If you have multiple personality disorder , well , then you have an excuse to worry , since there could be a hostile takeover .
Unless , of course , you 're the personality taking over , in which case , have a blast , take no prisoners , etc... I 'll just be over here...far , far away , over here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the sole subject of the corporate entity, you are Chief accounting officer, Chief administrative officer, Chief analytics officer, Chief brand officer, Chief channel officer, Chief compliance officer, Chief communications officer, Chief data officer, Chief executive officer, Chief financial officer, Chief information officer, Chief information security officer, Chief knowledge officer, Chief learning officer, Chief legal officer, Chief marketing officer, Chief networking officer, Chief operating officer, Chief procurement officer, Chief risk officer, Chief science officer, Chief strategy officer, Chief technical officer, Chief visionary officer, Chief human resources officer, Board of Directors + Chairman of the Board, all rolled into one.
The decisions are all coming from the same place.
If you have multiple personality disorder, well, then you have an excuse to worry, since there could be a hostile takeover.
Unless, of course, you're the personality taking over, in which case, have a blast, take no prisoners, etc... I'll just be over here...far, far away, over here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708740</id>
	<title>Re:Ha! You leave me out of this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263066660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, folks who are tech savvy and have been around the Internet for a number of years - have probably already learned this lesson.  I look back on some of the things I posted to Usenet and cringe - even worse is the fact that it's all still there through Google (and I'm talking late 80s).  So I wouldn't be too sure about there not being consequences in the future.</p><p>Nowadays, I tend to keep absolutely everything private - or use a handle/anon if needed.  If I need to contact an old friend, then I'll contact them privately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , folks who are tech savvy and have been around the Internet for a number of years - have probably already learned this lesson .
I look back on some of the things I posted to Usenet and cringe - even worse is the fact that it 's all still there through Google ( and I 'm talking late 80s ) .
So I would n't be too sure about there not being consequences in the future.Nowadays , I tend to keep absolutely everything private - or use a handle/anon if needed .
If I need to contact an old friend , then I 'll contact them privately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, folks who are tech savvy and have been around the Internet for a number of years - have probably already learned this lesson.
I look back on some of the things I posted to Usenet and cringe - even worse is the fact that it's all still there through Google (and I'm talking late 80s).
So I wouldn't be too sure about there not being consequences in the future.Nowadays, I tend to keep absolutely everything private - or use a handle/anon if needed.
If I need to contact an old friend, then I'll contact them privately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708876</id>
	<title>This is Silly</title>
	<author>flajann</author>
	<datestamp>1263067920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People *choosing* to post details of their lives online does has nothing to do with rights to privacy (or should not). Privacy involves protecting person A's details from being seen/used/compromised by person/institution/agency B.<p>

But if person A elects to make some aspect of his life public, then obviously there is no "expectation of privacy" of the details person A wilfully made public. However, person A may wish to keep other details of his life private, and his rights to do so should not be compromised in any way by those details he made public, sans some illegal activity or intent to do harm to others.</p><p>

And of course, if something is "illegal", that does not necessarily proffer a waive to one's rights to privacy. It all depends on whether or not the "illegal" thing is justified or not. There are all kinds of bad laws and practices that should be removed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People * choosing * to post details of their lives online does has nothing to do with rights to privacy ( or should not ) .
Privacy involves protecting person A 's details from being seen/used/compromised by person/institution/agency B . But if person A elects to make some aspect of his life public , then obviously there is no " expectation of privacy " of the details person A wilfully made public .
However , person A may wish to keep other details of his life private , and his rights to do so should not be compromised in any way by those details he made public , sans some illegal activity or intent to do harm to others .
And of course , if something is " illegal " , that does not necessarily proffer a waive to one 's rights to privacy .
It all depends on whether or not the " illegal " thing is justified or not .
There are all kinds of bad laws and practices that should be removed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People *choosing* to post details of their lives online does has nothing to do with rights to privacy (or should not).
Privacy involves protecting person A's details from being seen/used/compromised by person/institution/agency B.

But if person A elects to make some aspect of his life public, then obviously there is no "expectation of privacy" of the details person A wilfully made public.
However, person A may wish to keep other details of his life private, and his rights to do so should not be compromised in any way by those details he made public, sans some illegal activity or intent to do harm to others.
And of course, if something is "illegal", that does not necessarily proffer a waive to one's rights to privacy.
It all depends on whether or not the "illegal" thing is justified or not.
There are all kinds of bad laws and practices that should be removed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30715318</id>
	<title>Re:A simple cure - if you can't beat 'em...</title>
	<author>Zero\_\_Kelvin</author>
	<datestamp>1263148020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the GPs linked article:<blockquote><div><p>"This is the text of the 1886 Supreme Court decision granting corporations the <b>same rights</b> as living persons<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." - <i>[emphasis Added]</i> </p><blockquote><div><p>"Incorporate yourself, your belongings, etc. as an LLC."</p></div></blockquote></div> </blockquote><p>How, exactly, would that be an advantage?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the GPs linked article : " This is the text of the 1886 Supreme Court decision granting corporations the same rights as living persons ... " - [ emphasis Added ] " Incorporate yourself , your belongings , etc .
as an LLC .
" How , exactly , would that be an advantage ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the GPs linked article:"This is the text of the 1886 Supreme Court decision granting corporations the same rights as living persons ..." - [emphasis Added] "Incorporate yourself, your belongings, etc.
as an LLC.
" How, exactly, would that be an advantage?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30714272</id>
	<title>Re:Apples and ornages</title>
	<author>sydneyfong</author>
	<datestamp>1263135720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last I checked, truth *is* a defense for slander in England.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked , truth * is * a defense for slander in England .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked, truth *is* a defense for slander in England.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709440</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709066</id>
	<title>Re:Good Morning.</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1263069180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be fair people shared all sorts of aspects of their life. The only difference now is places like Facebook (not myspace) add some visually appealing consistency rather than people going nuts on some Tripod/GeoCities WYSIWYG editor to create something awful.
<br> <br>
Those products are only a by-product of the attention seekers. If we could put an end to this idea that you can be famous just for being famous (big thanks to reality TV for that) then perhaps we'd have less people doing anything for attention.
<br> <br>
Don't get me wrong. I do think anyone should be able to voice their opinion and post what they want rather than everything being filtered through corporations but I think people would be more reasonable if there wasn't a slight chance (and really it is only a slight chance) of fame for doing something retarded.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair people shared all sorts of aspects of their life .
The only difference now is places like Facebook ( not myspace ) add some visually appealing consistency rather than people going nuts on some Tripod/GeoCities WYSIWYG editor to create something awful .
Those products are only a by-product of the attention seekers .
If we could put an end to this idea that you can be famous just for being famous ( big thanks to reality TV for that ) then perhaps we 'd have less people doing anything for attention .
Do n't get me wrong .
I do think anyone should be able to voice their opinion and post what they want rather than everything being filtered through corporations but I think people would be more reasonable if there was n't a slight chance ( and really it is only a slight chance ) of fame for doing something retarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair people shared all sorts of aspects of their life.
The only difference now is places like Facebook (not myspace) add some visually appealing consistency rather than people going nuts on some Tripod/GeoCities WYSIWYG editor to create something awful.
Those products are only a by-product of the attention seekers.
If we could put an end to this idea that you can be famous just for being famous (big thanks to reality TV for that) then perhaps we'd have less people doing anything for attention.
Don't get me wrong.
I do think anyone should be able to voice their opinion and post what they want rather than everything being filtered through corporations but I think people would be more reasonable if there wasn't a slight chance (and really it is only a slight chance) of fame for doing something retarded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708838</id>
	<title>Re:Good Morning.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263067500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Translation of Translation:</p><p>"I have no real friends so I am relying on Facebook to cover the deficit."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Translation of Translation : " I have no real friends so I am relying on Facebook to cover the deficit .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Translation of Translation:"I have no real friends so I am relying on Facebook to cover the deficit.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710032</id>
	<title>And for all the hype ....</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1263035400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reality seems to be much different.   I'm a regular Facebook user myself, and just about everyone I cared enough about to make a "friend" on there and follow posts nothing Id say would really cause a loss of privacy for them.</p><p>Most of the time, it's such "revealing" information as "I wish this cold weather would end soon!", or someone filling us in on where they decided to go out to eat earlier in the evening.</p><p>The "Facebook/MySpace" phenomenon you speak of is little more than people finding a new tool to "mass communicate" with their friends, and possibly re-locate old, lost ones.  Like everything, its usefulness or destructiveness is all about HOW you implement it.</p><p>Honestly, I get the most out of Facebook when my friends dig up interesting and relevant news items and post URLs for the rest of us to see and discuss.  It's far more efficient than getting one forwarded to you in a random email, when somebody has your address handy and realizes you'd be especially interested in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reality seems to be much different .
I 'm a regular Facebook user myself , and just about everyone I cared enough about to make a " friend " on there and follow posts nothing Id say would really cause a loss of privacy for them.Most of the time , it 's such " revealing " information as " I wish this cold weather would end soon !
" , or someone filling us in on where they decided to go out to eat earlier in the evening.The " Facebook/MySpace " phenomenon you speak of is little more than people finding a new tool to " mass communicate " with their friends , and possibly re-locate old , lost ones .
Like everything , its usefulness or destructiveness is all about HOW you implement it.Honestly , I get the most out of Facebook when my friends dig up interesting and relevant news items and post URLs for the rest of us to see and discuss .
It 's far more efficient than getting one forwarded to you in a random email , when somebody has your address handy and realizes you 'd be especially interested in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reality seems to be much different.
I'm a regular Facebook user myself, and just about everyone I cared enough about to make a "friend" on there and follow posts nothing Id say would really cause a loss of privacy for them.Most of the time, it's such "revealing" information as "I wish this cold weather would end soon!
", or someone filling us in on where they decided to go out to eat earlier in the evening.The "Facebook/MySpace" phenomenon you speak of is little more than people finding a new tool to "mass communicate" with their friends, and possibly re-locate old, lost ones.
Like everything, its usefulness or destructiveness is all about HOW you implement it.Honestly, I get the most out of Facebook when my friends dig up interesting and relevant news items and post URLs for the rest of us to see and discuss.
It's far more efficient than getting one forwarded to you in a random email, when somebody has your address handy and realizes you'd be especially interested in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30717328</id>
	<title>Re:There will always be privacy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263120360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and the government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708656</id>
	<title>Apples and ornages</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1263065880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This really has nothing to do with 'a reasonable expectation of privacy'.  That principle applies to things you intend to do privately that you wish to keep hidden from a second or third party, not to things you do publicly.<br>
&nbsp; <br>If I catch a Peeping Tom at my window (for example) it doesn't matter one bit what I do on Facebook, because in my home I have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'.  Period.  If the defense were to bring up my Facebook activities, I would hope the prosecutor would realize that such a defense is no different than smearing a rape victim because she was wearing skimpy clothes or a robbery victim because they left their door unlocked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This really has nothing to do with 'a reasonable expectation of privacy' .
That principle applies to things you intend to do privately that you wish to keep hidden from a second or third party , not to things you do publicly .
  If I catch a Peeping Tom at my window ( for example ) it does n't matter one bit what I do on Facebook , because in my home I have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' .
Period. If the defense were to bring up my Facebook activities , I would hope the prosecutor would realize that such a defense is no different than smearing a rape victim because she was wearing skimpy clothes or a robbery victim because they left their door unlocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This really has nothing to do with 'a reasonable expectation of privacy'.
That principle applies to things you intend to do privately that you wish to keep hidden from a second or third party, not to things you do publicly.
  If I catch a Peeping Tom at my window (for example) it doesn't matter one bit what I do on Facebook, because in my home I have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'.
Period.  If the defense were to bring up my Facebook activities, I would hope the prosecutor would realize that such a defense is no different than smearing a rape victim because she was wearing skimpy clothes or a robbery victim because they left their door unlocked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708828</id>
	<title>Other people doing it for you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263067380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What sucks is when other people post TMI about you.  My real name and where I lived a few years ago is all over the dang place thanks to me suing and winning, which creeps me right out because it's on tons of law blogs and cited on several<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gov sites.   It's not exactly sealed information but why make it easy for everyone using Google to find it?  It has affected me getting employment because employers think I'm a litigious nut, even though it the case wasn't anything about fair labor or employment.</p><p>That's nowhere near as bad as an ex who can't move on publicly posting your nood polaroids out of spite or someone dropping dox because you called them a poopyhead on LJ ten years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What sucks is when other people post TMI about you .
My real name and where I lived a few years ago is all over the dang place thanks to me suing and winning , which creeps me right out because it 's on tons of law blogs and cited on several .gov sites .
It 's not exactly sealed information but why make it easy for everyone using Google to find it ?
It has affected me getting employment because employers think I 'm a litigious nut , even though it the case was n't anything about fair labor or employment.That 's nowhere near as bad as an ex who ca n't move on publicly posting your nood polaroids out of spite or someone dropping dox because you called them a poopyhead on LJ ten years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What sucks is when other people post TMI about you.
My real name and where I lived a few years ago is all over the dang place thanks to me suing and winning, which creeps me right out because it's on tons of law blogs and cited on several .gov sites.
It's not exactly sealed information but why make it easy for everyone using Google to find it?
It has affected me getting employment because employers think I'm a litigious nut, even though it the case wasn't anything about fair labor or employment.That's nowhere near as bad as an ex who can't move on publicly posting your nood polaroids out of spite or someone dropping dox because you called them a poopyhead on LJ ten years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30723576</id>
	<title>Re:Ha! You leave me out of this.</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1263227580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yikes!  I tried my username, and it's even got a picture of me.  I knew I should have shaved better!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yikes !
I tried my username , and it 's even got a picture of me .
I knew I should have shaved better !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yikes!
I tried my username, and it's even got a picture of me.
I knew I should have shaved better!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380</id>
	<title>Logic fail</title>
	<author>girlintraining</author>
	<datestamp>1263063540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this argument was "Well, all my neighbors steal cars, so it's okay if I steal cars too," people would immediately point out how broken that is. But when it's about privacy, suddenly that doesn't apply?</p><p>Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot?!</p><p>The difference here is that we're giving this information to people by choice -- people we know. Our friends, family, and acquaintances. But the only way to do that is to have a central authority to proxy that exchange. The problem is that this central authority abuses its power and -- even worse -- that the government wants its hands in everything as well. It should require a warrant because although a billion billion people might have access to the data, that doesn't mean you gave permission to the next guy.</p><p>How f***ing hard is it to understand this? This isn't about privacy -- this is about permissions and how we construct social spaces online. The government's got no right installing bugs in my house without a warrant, so why the hell should it be any different in a digital space than in a physical one?</p><p>Answer: Because they're taking advantage of the fact that it can't be seen and nobody understands how it works. It's that simple. No complex intellectual arguments required -- they're doing it <i>because nobody's going to stop them.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this argument was " Well , all my neighbors steal cars , so it 's okay if I steal cars too , " people would immediately point out how broken that is .
But when it 's about privacy , suddenly that does n't apply ? Whiskey .
Tango. Foxtrot ?
! The difference here is that we 're giving this information to people by choice -- people we know .
Our friends , family , and acquaintances .
But the only way to do that is to have a central authority to proxy that exchange .
The problem is that this central authority abuses its power and -- even worse -- that the government wants its hands in everything as well .
It should require a warrant because although a billion billion people might have access to the data , that does n't mean you gave permission to the next guy.How f * * * ing hard is it to understand this ?
This is n't about privacy -- this is about permissions and how we construct social spaces online .
The government 's got no right installing bugs in my house without a warrant , so why the hell should it be any different in a digital space than in a physical one ? Answer : Because they 're taking advantage of the fact that it ca n't be seen and nobody understands how it works .
It 's that simple .
No complex intellectual arguments required -- they 're doing it because nobody 's going to stop them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this argument was "Well, all my neighbors steal cars, so it's okay if I steal cars too," people would immediately point out how broken that is.
But when it's about privacy, suddenly that doesn't apply?Whiskey.
Tango. Foxtrot?
!The difference here is that we're giving this information to people by choice -- people we know.
Our friends, family, and acquaintances.
But the only way to do that is to have a central authority to proxy that exchange.
The problem is that this central authority abuses its power and -- even worse -- that the government wants its hands in everything as well.
It should require a warrant because although a billion billion people might have access to the data, that doesn't mean you gave permission to the next guy.How f***ing hard is it to understand this?
This isn't about privacy -- this is about permissions and how we construct social spaces online.
The government's got no right installing bugs in my house without a warrant, so why the hell should it be any different in a digital space than in a physical one?Answer: Because they're taking advantage of the fact that it can't be seen and nobody understands how it works.
It's that simple.
No complex intellectual arguments required -- they're doing it because nobody's going to stop them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710486</id>
	<title>Friends?</title>
	<author>watergeus</author>
	<datestamp>1263039900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the Article:</p><p><i>"A decade ago, he said, there would have been an assumption that it might be circulated among friends.<br>But now the assumption is that it may well end up on the internet and be viewed by strangers."</i></p><p>I have a lot of friends that are strangers. The meaning of the word 'friend' is changing in the digital world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the Article : " A decade ago , he said , there would have been an assumption that it might be circulated among friends.But now the assumption is that it may well end up on the internet and be viewed by strangers .
" I have a lot of friends that are strangers .
The meaning of the word 'friend ' is changing in the digital world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the Article:"A decade ago, he said, there would have been an assumption that it might be circulated among friends.But now the assumption is that it may well end up on the internet and be viewed by strangers.
"I have a lot of friends that are strangers.
The meaning of the word 'friend' is changing in the digital world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708336</id>
	<title>Good Morning.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263063240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fuck Myspace. <br>
Fuck Facebook. <br>
Fuck Twitter.<br> <br>

And a special "fuck you" to attention-starved fucks who use any of the above.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck Myspace .
Fuck Facebook .
Fuck Twitter .
And a special " fuck you " to attention-starved fucks who use any of the above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck Myspace.
Fuck Facebook.
Fuck Twitter.
And a special "fuck you" to attention-starved fucks who use any of the above.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30712016</id>
	<title>Re:Logic fail</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1263051960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"The difference here is that we're giving this information to people by choice -- people we know. Our friends, family, and acquaintances. But the only way to do that is to have a central authority to proxy that exchange."</i> <p>
Wow..I guess people didn't keep up, and interact with people BEFORE social networks, goodness, how did we every survive as a species before the age of the internet?</p><p>
Oh, that's right...phone calls, snail mail....gasp...seeing people in person.</p><p>
No, it wasn't instantaneous (well, phone calls are)...and no, people didn't as a rule tell you all about every bit of minutiae they did with their lives every waking minute.</p><p>
On the other hand.....that was a good thing!!</p><p>
Don't get me wrong...I'm no luddite, but, I do think staying off the social network thing is a small price to pay for retaining a bit of privacy. I don't do facebook, etc....and I've not missed out on anything with friends and family all across this country in the least bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The difference here is that we 're giving this information to people by choice -- people we know .
Our friends , family , and acquaintances .
But the only way to do that is to have a central authority to proxy that exchange .
" Wow..I guess people did n't keep up , and interact with people BEFORE social networks , goodness , how did we every survive as a species before the age of the internet ?
Oh , that 's right...phone calls , snail mail....gasp...seeing people in person .
No , it was n't instantaneous ( well , phone calls are ) ...and no , people did n't as a rule tell you all about every bit of minutiae they did with their lives every waking minute .
On the other hand.....that was a good thing ! !
Do n't get me wrong...I 'm no luddite , but , I do think staying off the social network thing is a small price to pay for retaining a bit of privacy .
I do n't do facebook , etc....and I 've not missed out on anything with friends and family all across this country in the least bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The difference here is that we're giving this information to people by choice -- people we know.
Our friends, family, and acquaintances.
But the only way to do that is to have a central authority to proxy that exchange.
" 
Wow..I guess people didn't keep up, and interact with people BEFORE social networks, goodness, how did we every survive as a species before the age of the internet?
Oh, that's right...phone calls, snail mail....gasp...seeing people in person.
No, it wasn't instantaneous (well, phone calls are)...and no, people didn't as a rule tell you all about every bit of minutiae they did with their lives every waking minute.
On the other hand.....that was a good thing!!
Don't get me wrong...I'm no luddite, but, I do think staying off the social network thing is a small price to pay for retaining a bit of privacy.
I don't do facebook, etc....and I've not missed out on anything with friends and family all across this country in the least bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30712430</id>
	<title>YOU IDIOTS blame the wrong target!</title>
	<author>myspace-cn</author>
	<datestamp>1263056760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to point out the fact our privacy laws in each of our respective countries are based on "officials"  and their decisions. Not the public. Not Myspace, Facebook, or Twitter either.   So while several social networking websites are painted as target by several misguided asshole replies (and their parrots) in this thread, the misguided theory actually puts the blame on the wrong target.  Your country's leaders suck, your country's "officials" suck, your country's law enforcement sucks, your judges are corrupt.  You want your privacy back?  You better throw out the shit stains running your country off the cliff with all this terrorist / war propaganda.</p><p>The following mentality is a total failure to comprehend the world around you:</p><p><i>Fuck Myspace.  Fuck Facebook.  Fuck Twitter.<br>And a special "fuck you" to attention-starved fucks who use any of the above.</i></p><p>The truth behind this attitude is you simply don't like these services. So Man up.  The world isn't a joke anymore. There may be the rare exception, but not 50<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. posts.  That's propaganda / brainwashing.<br>If you really want to target myspace, facebook, twitter you need to use the Corporate angle, or the TOS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/AUP angle</p><p>What you really meant:</p><p><b>Fuck My Officials, Fuck Law Enforcement, Fuck Judges, Fuck shitty Laws, and Fuck our Leaders who break their oath.<br>And in the USA a special "fuck you" to the spooks with the FIOS splitter </b></p><p>After all if your officials didn't make the shitty laws, you wouldn't have a problem with social networking, or free music from bands on myspace.</p><p>So go ahead,  don't think for yourself, and don't root out the corruption. Listen to misguided who don't fight the corrupt system, instead pointing out alternative, incorrect targets leading your ass right off the cliff.  Privacy will be the least of your problems, when the bond market crashes.</p><p><b>You want to know who has privacy?   The Banks! The Spooks! The Elected!  Your Officials!  State Secrets to cover up crimes!    Corporations with big Patent's, Trademarks, Copyrights</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to point out the fact our privacy laws in each of our respective countries are based on " officials " and their decisions .
Not the public .
Not Myspace , Facebook , or Twitter either .
So while several social networking websites are painted as target by several misguided asshole replies ( and their parrots ) in this thread , the misguided theory actually puts the blame on the wrong target .
Your country 's leaders suck , your country 's " officials " suck , your country 's law enforcement sucks , your judges are corrupt .
You want your privacy back ?
You better throw out the shit stains running your country off the cliff with all this terrorist / war propaganda.The following mentality is a total failure to comprehend the world around you : Fuck Myspace .
Fuck Facebook .
Fuck Twitter.And a special " fuck you " to attention-starved fucks who use any of the above.The truth behind this attitude is you simply do n't like these services .
So Man up .
The world is n't a joke anymore .
There may be the rare exception , but not 50 / .
posts. That 's propaganda / brainwashing.If you really want to target myspace , facebook , twitter you need to use the Corporate angle , or the TOS /AUP angleWhat you really meant : Fuck My Officials , Fuck Law Enforcement , Fuck Judges , Fuck shitty Laws , and Fuck our Leaders who break their oath.And in the USA a special " fuck you " to the spooks with the FIOS splitter After all if your officials did n't make the shitty laws , you would n't have a problem with social networking , or free music from bands on myspace.So go ahead , do n't think for yourself , and do n't root out the corruption .
Listen to misguided who do n't fight the corrupt system , instead pointing out alternative , incorrect targets leading your ass right off the cliff .
Privacy will be the least of your problems , when the bond market crashes.You want to know who has privacy ?
The Banks !
The Spooks !
The Elected !
Your Officials !
State Secrets to cover up crimes !
Corporations with big Patent 's , Trademarks , Copyrights</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to point out the fact our privacy laws in each of our respective countries are based on "officials"  and their decisions.
Not the public.
Not Myspace, Facebook, or Twitter either.
So while several social networking websites are painted as target by several misguided asshole replies (and their parrots) in this thread, the misguided theory actually puts the blame on the wrong target.
Your country's leaders suck, your country's "officials" suck, your country's law enforcement sucks, your judges are corrupt.
You want your privacy back?
You better throw out the shit stains running your country off the cliff with all this terrorist / war propaganda.The following mentality is a total failure to comprehend the world around you:Fuck Myspace.
Fuck Facebook.
Fuck Twitter.And a special "fuck you" to attention-starved fucks who use any of the above.The truth behind this attitude is you simply don't like these services.
So Man up.
The world isn't a joke anymore.
There may be the rare exception, but not 50 /.
posts.  That's propaganda / brainwashing.If you really want to target myspace, facebook, twitter you need to use the Corporate angle, or the TOS /AUP angleWhat you really meant:Fuck My Officials, Fuck Law Enforcement, Fuck Judges, Fuck shitty Laws, and Fuck our Leaders who break their oath.And in the USA a special "fuck you" to the spooks with the FIOS splitter After all if your officials didn't make the shitty laws, you wouldn't have a problem with social networking, or free music from bands on myspace.So go ahead,  don't think for yourself, and don't root out the corruption.
Listen to misguided who don't fight the corrupt system, instead pointing out alternative, incorrect targets leading your ass right off the cliff.
Privacy will be the least of your problems, when the bond market crashes.You want to know who has privacy?
The Banks!
The Spooks!
The Elected!
Your Officials!
State Secrets to cover up crimes!
Corporations with big Patent's, Trademarks, Copyrights</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709648</id>
	<title>Re:Logic fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263031380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The government's got no right installing bugs in my house without a warrant, so why the hell should it be any different in a digital space than in a physical one?</p></div><p>Facebook, MySpace, Slashdot, et al. are not your home.  They are the digital equivalent of a privately owned public space.  What you do (post) has no reasonable expectation of privacy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The government 's got no right installing bugs in my house without a warrant , so why the hell should it be any different in a digital space than in a physical one ? Facebook , MySpace , Slashdot , et al .
are not your home .
They are the digital equivalent of a privately owned public space .
What you do ( post ) has no reasonable expectation of privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government's got no right installing bugs in my house without a warrant, so why the hell should it be any different in a digital space than in a physical one?Facebook, MySpace, Slashdot, et al.
are not your home.
They are the digital equivalent of a privately owned public space.
What you do (post) has no reasonable expectation of privacy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709284</id>
	<title>Re:Logic fail</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1263028020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You state that the government is going to do something "because nobody's going to stop them."<br>In the same argument you state "The government's got no right" to do that thing."</p><p>If NOBODY is going to stop them, then the government has the right to act because (as you say) nobody is going to oppose the government.</p><p>Take some responsibility,PLEASE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You state that the government is going to do something " because nobody 's going to stop them .
" In the same argument you state " The government 's got no right " to do that thing .
" If NOBODY is going to stop them , then the government has the right to act because ( as you say ) nobody is going to oppose the government.Take some responsibility,PLEASE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You state that the government is going to do something "because nobody's going to stop them.
"In the same argument you state "The government's got no right" to do that thing.
"If NOBODY is going to stop them, then the government has the right to act because (as you say) nobody is going to oppose the government.Take some responsibility,PLEASE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30715326</id>
	<title>Re:Expectation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263148080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you do not mind posting how much money you make, where you live, and when you're away for a holiday?</p><p>interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you do not mind posting how much money you make , where you live , and when you 're away for a holiday ? interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you do not mind posting how much money you make, where you live, and when you're away for a holiday?interesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30713232</id>
	<title>Why American?</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1263156180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are more Chinese people on the web than American, aren't there (or soon will be)?</p><p>Why base privacy expectations on the behaviour of Americans, rather than people in other countries?</p><p>I suspect the answer is: the Internet only matters to British law in so far as it is English-speaking. It is biased, then, to Americans - the largest group of English-speakers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are more Chinese people on the web than American , are n't there ( or soon will be ) ? Why base privacy expectations on the behaviour of Americans , rather than people in other countries ? I suspect the answer is : the Internet only matters to British law in so far as it is English-speaking .
It is biased , then , to Americans - the largest group of English-speakers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are more Chinese people on the web than American, aren't there (or soon will be)?Why base privacy expectations on the behaviour of Americans, rather than people in other countries?I suspect the answer is: the Internet only matters to British law in so far as it is English-speaking.
It is biased, then, to Americans - the largest group of English-speakers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710130</id>
	<title>A twisted thought...</title>
	<author>HigH5</author>
	<datestamp>1263036540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would it be possible to use DMCA to force people pull down pics with your face on them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would it be possible to use DMCA to force people pull down pics with your face on them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would it be possible to use DMCA to force people pull down pics with your face on them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708588</id>
	<title>Re:Lie on social networking sites</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263065280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Add friends by brute force, find randomers, try to add a bunch of their friends, move on to the next randomer and do the same thing. A significant number will accept your request? Why? because most people on those sites are attention seeking whores.</p></div><p>So, what you're saying is... do online what stuck-up cheerleader types have been doing for years: Flirt with everyone, lie, cheat, steal, and sleep your way to the top without ever revealing just how shallow you are. GOD I LOVE HUMANITY RIGHT NOW! <i>mutter...mutter...stab.</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Add friends by brute force , find randomers , try to add a bunch of their friends , move on to the next randomer and do the same thing .
A significant number will accept your request ?
Why ? because most people on those sites are attention seeking whores.So , what you 're saying is... do online what stuck-up cheerleader types have been doing for years : Flirt with everyone , lie , cheat , steal , and sleep your way to the top without ever revealing just how shallow you are .
GOD I LOVE HUMANITY RIGHT NOW !
mutter...mutter...stab .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Add friends by brute force, find randomers, try to add a bunch of their friends, move on to the next randomer and do the same thing.
A significant number will accept your request?
Why? because most people on those sites are attention seeking whores.So, what you're saying is... do online what stuck-up cheerleader types have been doing for years: Flirt with everyone, lie, cheat, steal, and sleep your way to the top without ever revealing just how shallow you are.
GOD I LOVE HUMANITY RIGHT NOW!
mutter...mutter...stab.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710008</id>
	<title>Re:Other people doing it for you</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1263035160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The court system is public by design.  When you chose to file suit, you chose to expose certain information about yourself.  I'm sorry if you're suffering for it now, but consider that the alternative is a court system where proceedings take place in secrecy.  We have a few examples of this already as part of the "War on Terror," and most thoughtful people consider this to be a Bad Thing; you really, really don't want to live in a world where it's the norm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The court system is public by design .
When you chose to file suit , you chose to expose certain information about yourself .
I 'm sorry if you 're suffering for it now , but consider that the alternative is a court system where proceedings take place in secrecy .
We have a few examples of this already as part of the " War on Terror , " and most thoughtful people consider this to be a Bad Thing ; you really , really do n't want to live in a world where it 's the norm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The court system is public by design.
When you chose to file suit, you chose to expose certain information about yourself.
I'm sorry if you're suffering for it now, but consider that the alternative is a court system where proceedings take place in secrecy.
We have a few examples of this already as part of the "War on Terror," and most thoughtful people consider this to be a Bad Thing; you really, really don't want to live in a world where it's the norm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30711422</id>
	<title>Re:There will always be privacy.</title>
	<author>KIRBY1986</author>
	<datestamp>1263047340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.allbyer.com/" title="allbyer.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.allbyer.com/</a> [allbyer.com]
Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,Here are the most popular, most stylish and avant-garde shoes,handbags,Tshirts, jacket,Tracksuit w ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3) $35HANDBGAS(COACH,L V, DG, ED HARDY) $35TSHIRTS (POLO<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,ED HARDY, LACOSTE) $16
thanks... For details, please consult <a href="http://www.allbyer.com/" title="allbyer.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.allbyer.com/</a> [allbyer.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.allbyer.com/ [ allbyer.com ] Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,Here are the most popular , most stylish and avant-garde shoes,handbags,Tshirts , jacket,Tracksuit w ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA ,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3 ) $ 35HANDBGAS ( COACH,L V , DG , ED HARDY ) $ 35TSHIRTS ( POLO ,ED HARDY , LACOSTE ) $ 16 thanks... For details , please consult http : //www.allbyer.com/ [ allbyer.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.allbyer.com/ [allbyer.com]
Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,Here are the most popular, most stylish and avant-garde shoes,handbags,Tshirts, jacket,Tracksuit w ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA ,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3) $35HANDBGAS(COACH,L V, DG, ED HARDY) $35TSHIRTS (POLO ,ED HARDY, LACOSTE) $16
thanks... For details, please consult http://www.allbyer.com/ [allbyer.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30716118</id>
	<title>Re:And for all the hype ....</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1263154560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, at this point in my life, the consequences are probably minimal. I am who I am, I have thirty years of my career behind me, and if I posted drunken pictures of myself at a party I doubt anyone would care. The question is, would that be the same for a person in their early twenties, say, who's just starting out? It's a lot easier to get burned by indiscretion when you're young.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , at this point in my life , the consequences are probably minimal .
I am who I am , I have thirty years of my career behind me , and if I posted drunken pictures of myself at a party I doubt anyone would care .
The question is , would that be the same for a person in their early twenties , say , who 's just starting out ?
It 's a lot easier to get burned by indiscretion when you 're young .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, at this point in my life, the consequences are probably minimal.
I am who I am, I have thirty years of my career behind me, and if I posted drunken pictures of myself at a party I doubt anyone would care.
The question is, would that be the same for a person in their early twenties, say, who's just starting out?
It's a lot easier to get burned by indiscretion when you're young.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708618</id>
	<title>Don't see what the big deal is</title>
	<author>ModernGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1263065520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The things I post on facebook are things I would show to any stranger. I think of facebook as a PR tool, when I post to it, I imagine showing everybody in the world. I would never use it to share anything "secret".  If there were pictures I only wanted certain friends to see, I wouldn't use facebook to share them. How hard can this be?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The things I post on facebook are things I would show to any stranger .
I think of facebook as a PR tool , when I post to it , I imagine showing everybody in the world .
I would never use it to share anything " secret " .
If there were pictures I only wanted certain friends to see , I would n't use facebook to share them .
How hard can this be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The things I post on facebook are things I would show to any stranger.
I think of facebook as a PR tool, when I post to it, I imagine showing everybody in the world.
I would never use it to share anything "secret".
If there were pictures I only wanted certain friends to see, I wouldn't use facebook to share them.
How hard can this be?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708532</id>
	<title>Welcome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263064740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dumb, fashion-following, uncritical people fuck it all up for everybody else: Welcome to Democracy in a nation where education is all geared up to turn kids into make tomorrows working drones instead of empowering them as self-thinking and self-opinied individuals.</p><p>As a foreigner that lives in the UK, I'm not at all surprised that the greatest assault on privacy and freedom in the whole Western world is hapenning in the country of celebrity culture and political spin.<br>(the only claim to Cultural prowness that modern Britain has is BBC)</p><p>Some people around here do to try to turn their kids into true individuals (and they have my respect for paddling against the tide), but the vast unwashed masses just leave their kids' education as persons to the (mosly cheap and superficial) Tele and a state school system which is so in thrall of Political Correctness and Health &amp; Safety Regulations that kids are not allowed to explore and are taught to not critcise anything or anyone).</p><p>This is very much in the best interest of the local politicians (whose kids go to private schools) since unthinking and uncritical people are easier to decieve with Smoke and Mirrors games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dumb , fashion-following , uncritical people fuck it all up for everybody else : Welcome to Democracy in a nation where education is all geared up to turn kids into make tomorrows working drones instead of empowering them as self-thinking and self-opinied individuals.As a foreigner that lives in the UK , I 'm not at all surprised that the greatest assault on privacy and freedom in the whole Western world is hapenning in the country of celebrity culture and political spin .
( the only claim to Cultural prowness that modern Britain has is BBC ) Some people around here do to try to turn their kids into true individuals ( and they have my respect for paddling against the tide ) , but the vast unwashed masses just leave their kids ' education as persons to the ( mosly cheap and superficial ) Tele and a state school system which is so in thrall of Political Correctness and Health &amp; Safety Regulations that kids are not allowed to explore and are taught to not critcise anything or anyone ) .This is very much in the best interest of the local politicians ( whose kids go to private schools ) since unthinking and uncritical people are easier to decieve with Smoke and Mirrors games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dumb, fashion-following, uncritical people fuck it all up for everybody else: Welcome to Democracy in a nation where education is all geared up to turn kids into make tomorrows working drones instead of empowering them as self-thinking and self-opinied individuals.As a foreigner that lives in the UK, I'm not at all surprised that the greatest assault on privacy and freedom in the whole Western world is hapenning in the country of celebrity culture and political spin.
(the only claim to Cultural prowness that modern Britain has is BBC)Some people around here do to try to turn their kids into true individuals (and they have my respect for paddling against the tide), but the vast unwashed masses just leave their kids' education as persons to the (mosly cheap and superficial) Tele and a state school system which is so in thrall of Political Correctness and Health &amp; Safety Regulations that kids are not allowed to explore and are taught to not critcise anything or anyone).This is very much in the best interest of the local politicians (whose kids go to private schools) since unthinking and uncritical people are easier to decieve with Smoke and Mirrors games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30712452</id>
	<title>Re:about you, but not --by-- you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263057120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Like you're a <strong>15-year-old female</strong> elf or something.</p></div></blockquote><p>Uh huh. Why do I get vague feelings that it is a bad idea...? [even if you are female]</p><p>(I know it says "elf" after but any idiot who you tell that to is going to ignore the last part and think you are 15-yr-old with big ears or something. Also, elves are long-lived not short-lived, you could go with 265 years old that still looks like you are 20)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like you 're a 15-year-old female elf or something.Uh huh .
Why do I get vague feelings that it is a bad idea... ?
[ even if you are female ] ( I know it says " elf " after but any idiot who you tell that to is going to ignore the last part and think you are 15-yr-old with big ears or something .
Also , elves are long-lived not short-lived , you could go with 265 years old that still looks like you are 20 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like you're a 15-year-old female elf or something.Uh huh.
Why do I get vague feelings that it is a bad idea...?
[even if you are female](I know it says "elf" after but any idiot who you tell that to is going to ignore the last part and think you are 15-yr-old with big ears or something.
Also, elves are long-lived not short-lived, you could go with 265 years old that still looks like you are 20)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708432</id>
	<title>Re:Logic fail</title>
	<author>HomelessInLaJolla</author>
	<datestamp>1263064020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the natural world there are three levels of privacy:  private, public, and performance.  The worldwide broadcast network completely eradicates the line between private and public with the added bonus of instant performance level attention.</p><p>The disingenuous part is that the global population of network users are allowed to hold on to some measure of expectation of privacy.  Few recognize, and fewer admit, the extent of network surveillance by ISPs, administrators, rogues, and government.  In real life there is an expectation that, even though you may be in public, you do not have a crew of people standing over your shoulder or listening in from across the street; this expectation is assisted by our perception of personal space.  On the network the majority of users would have no idea if someone were right over their shoulder--much less holding an audio recorder under them 24/7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the natural world there are three levels of privacy : private , public , and performance .
The worldwide broadcast network completely eradicates the line between private and public with the added bonus of instant performance level attention.The disingenuous part is that the global population of network users are allowed to hold on to some measure of expectation of privacy .
Few recognize , and fewer admit , the extent of network surveillance by ISPs , administrators , rogues , and government .
In real life there is an expectation that , even though you may be in public , you do not have a crew of people standing over your shoulder or listening in from across the street ; this expectation is assisted by our perception of personal space .
On the network the majority of users would have no idea if someone were right over their shoulder--much less holding an audio recorder under them 24/7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the natural world there are three levels of privacy:  private, public, and performance.
The worldwide broadcast network completely eradicates the line between private and public with the added bonus of instant performance level attention.The disingenuous part is that the global population of network users are allowed to hold on to some measure of expectation of privacy.
Few recognize, and fewer admit, the extent of network surveillance by ISPs, administrators, rogues, and government.
In real life there is an expectation that, even though you may be in public, you do not have a crew of people standing over your shoulder or listening in from across the street; this expectation is assisted by our perception of personal space.
On the network the majority of users would have no idea if someone were right over their shoulder--much less holding an audio recorder under them 24/7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709128</id>
	<title>English law</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1263069780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually that is the case, and they wouldn't. Policing in the UK varies with social context. In Northern Ireland and other Irish-heavy areas of the UK there is a huge culture of car crime and the police pay little attention to it. Communities won't identify or testify against the perpetrators. Elsewhere young male car crime often appears as a lesser offence - TWOCing (taking without consent.) Whereas in some places car theft will result in rapid detection and punishment.<p>This is because in the UK we do not have a written Constitution but we do have common law - so in the absence of intervention by the tabloids and the attention-seekers in Government, law evolves according to community expectations. If it was not for the tabloids and politicians, cannabis would have been de facto legalised in the South-West thirty years ago by lack of interest from police and magistrates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually that is the case , and they would n't .
Policing in the UK varies with social context .
In Northern Ireland and other Irish-heavy areas of the UK there is a huge culture of car crime and the police pay little attention to it .
Communities wo n't identify or testify against the perpetrators .
Elsewhere young male car crime often appears as a lesser offence - TWOCing ( taking without consent .
) Whereas in some places car theft will result in rapid detection and punishment.This is because in the UK we do not have a written Constitution but we do have common law - so in the absence of intervention by the tabloids and the attention-seekers in Government , law evolves according to community expectations .
If it was not for the tabloids and politicians , cannabis would have been de facto legalised in the South-West thirty years ago by lack of interest from police and magistrates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually that is the case, and they wouldn't.
Policing in the UK varies with social context.
In Northern Ireland and other Irish-heavy areas of the UK there is a huge culture of car crime and the police pay little attention to it.
Communities won't identify or testify against the perpetrators.
Elsewhere young male car crime often appears as a lesser offence - TWOCing (taking without consent.
) Whereas in some places car theft will result in rapid detection and punishment.This is because in the UK we do not have a written Constitution but we do have common law - so in the absence of intervention by the tabloids and the attention-seekers in Government, law evolves according to community expectations.
If it was not for the tabloids and politicians, cannabis would have been de facto legalised in the South-West thirty years ago by lack of interest from police and magistrates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708528</id>
	<title>Would a fad for sex in the front yard...</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1263064740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...cause me to lose my expectation of privacy in my bedroom?  I don't think so.  Not even in England.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...cause me to lose my expectation of privacy in my bedroom ?
I do n't think so .
Not even in England .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...cause me to lose my expectation of privacy in my bedroom?
I don't think so.
Not even in England.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30714046</id>
	<title>Red Herrings Anyone?</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1263131460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>         Privacy is a non starter in the race. People have the right to know, to study, to collect information. That right to know far surpasses anyone's supposed right to privacy. It becomes an absurd dance. How could you know if I were collecting too much information about you? I know! You must be allowed to search my records to make sure. Where did my right to privacy go? And if I store up that data in my photographic memory should you be allowed to cut my head off to make certain that I don't have too much information about you stored in my mind?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy is a non starter in the race .
People have the right to know , to study , to collect information .
That right to know far surpasses anyone 's supposed right to privacy .
It becomes an absurd dance .
How could you know if I were collecting too much information about you ?
I know !
You must be allowed to search my records to make sure .
Where did my right to privacy go ?
And if I store up that data in my photographic memory should you be allowed to cut my head off to make certain that I do n't have too much information about you stored in my mind ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         Privacy is a non starter in the race.
People have the right to know, to study, to collect information.
That right to know far surpasses anyone's supposed right to privacy.
It becomes an absurd dance.
How could you know if I were collecting too much information about you?
I know!
You must be allowed to search my records to make sure.
Where did my right to privacy go?
And if I store up that data in my photographic memory should you be allowed to cut my head off to make certain that I don't have too much information about you stored in my mind?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709086</id>
	<title>Re:Logic fail</title>
	<author>Smegly</author>
	<datestamp>1263069420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If this argument was "Well, all my neighbors steal cars, so it's okay if I steal cars too," people would immediately point out how broken that is. But when it's about privacy, suddenly that doesn't apply?</p></div><p>Exactly. It also does not apply when the majority of the neighbors all download content online - that makes them <i>all</i> evil thieving pirates. Because of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with the copyright laws and their never ending extension periods and stealing from the public domain without giving anything back.
<br>Of course, loss of privacy suits the aims of the establishment, while downloading does not - you don't have to look very hard to find a large chunk of laws that serve the business interests of those who payed to have them put in place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this argument was " Well , all my neighbors steal cars , so it 's okay if I steal cars too , " people would immediately point out how broken that is .
But when it 's about privacy , suddenly that does n't apply ? Exactly .
It also does not apply when the majority of the neighbors all download content online - that makes them all evil thieving pirates .
Because of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with the copyright laws and their never ending extension periods and stealing from the public domain without giving anything back .
Of course , loss of privacy suits the aims of the establishment , while downloading does not - you do n't have to look very hard to find a large chunk of laws that serve the business interests of those who payed to have them put in place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this argument was "Well, all my neighbors steal cars, so it's okay if I steal cars too," people would immediately point out how broken that is.
But when it's about privacy, suddenly that doesn't apply?Exactly.
It also does not apply when the majority of the neighbors all download content online - that makes them all evil thieving pirates.
Because of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with the copyright laws and their never ending extension periods and stealing from the public domain without giving anything back.
Of course, loss of privacy suits the aims of the establishment, while downloading does not - you don't have to look very hard to find a large chunk of laws that serve the business interests of those who payed to have them put in place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708498</id>
	<title>Re:Good Morning.</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1263064500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've always wondered why that is considered both a grave insult and goal of the highest order. To many it is even their life ambition. <br> <br>That being considered, I don't think it is so much an insult as it is well-wishes, somewhat like "good luck" or "have a nice day".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always wondered why that is considered both a grave insult and goal of the highest order .
To many it is even their life ambition .
That being considered , I do n't think it is so much an insult as it is well-wishes , somewhat like " good luck " or " have a nice day " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always wondered why that is considered both a grave insult and goal of the highest order.
To many it is even their life ambition.
That being considered, I don't think it is so much an insult as it is well-wishes, somewhat like "good luck" or "have a nice day".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708462</id>
	<title>They are aware</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263064260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They fact that the outcomes are not what you desire does not prove that people are not aware of the privacy implications on society.</p><p>Some people just can't deal with the fact that people are more boorish, stupid, racist, sexist, or exhibitionist than they personally might approve of.</p><p>The collective of mad apes will always behave in a manner that would have us question "just what were they thinking?" And it will never be that if I just show them the facts, they will behave the way I want them. People can be fully informed and knowledgeable and still live a lifestyle I might not approve of. Not behaving the way I want is not proof of ignorance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They fact that the outcomes are not what you desire does not prove that people are not aware of the privacy implications on society.Some people just ca n't deal with the fact that people are more boorish , stupid , racist , sexist , or exhibitionist than they personally might approve of.The collective of mad apes will always behave in a manner that would have us question " just what were they thinking ?
" And it will never be that if I just show them the facts , they will behave the way I want them .
People can be fully informed and knowledgeable and still live a lifestyle I might not approve of .
Not behaving the way I want is not proof of ignorance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They fact that the outcomes are not what you desire does not prove that people are not aware of the privacy implications on society.Some people just can't deal with the fact that people are more boorish, stupid, racist, sexist, or exhibitionist than they personally might approve of.The collective of mad apes will always behave in a manner that would have us question "just what were they thinking?
" And it will never be that if I just show them the facts, they will behave the way I want them.
People can be fully informed and knowledgeable and still live a lifestyle I might not approve of.
Not behaving the way I want is not proof of ignorance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30712602</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy is not needed</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1263059400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Privacy is more than the protection against humiliation, it is a tool to prevent others from acting on incomplete information.  If everyone knew everything about everyone then we'd be a very tolerant people that probably preemptively executed or isolated the hopelessly sociopathic.  The problem is that such a world is impossible since we cannot know what a person is thinking, nor monitor them all the time, nor remember that much information even if it were available.  Therefore, we're forced to make decisions about people given our very limited information on them.  Since it's nearly impossible to be completely independent of other humans, we must do what we can to guide their opinions and decisions in a way that benefits us.  This is necessary for both gene propagation and rational happiness.
<br> <br>
As for genetics, traits that enable us to have the greatest number of progeny are selected for.  This means that our emotions are beneficial for this, and most likely happiness itself is a reward for getting closer to this goal.  Either way, we are what we are.  These traits don't work against us, they are us.  Beyond that, there isn't really a "humiliation" gene.  There are genes that construct neurons which form fairly random neural networks, and genes that provide feedback to shape these networks into something evolutionarily useful.  Besides genes, human society also shapes these networks, and there's an evolutionary benefit to emulating successful behaviors.  Without doing so a human cannot achieve a high level of functionality, since that would be akin to the first caveman building a car (then insuring it).
<br> <br>
While it's true that you could probably mold your "happiness" to not be at all dependent on others, how is that beneficial?  If something displeases you then you have two ways to solve that problem.  The first is to change yourself so that it no longer displeases you, and the other is to change it.  Privacy is a means of preemptively changing society, or at least how you fit into it.  It's a perfectly valid solution, and one that doesn't compromise your own personal existance.  OTOH, if it doesn't work for you then ignoring others is always an option.  It is just more logical to try privacy first since it's much easier to try the former then switch to the latter if it doesn't work than vice versa.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Privacy is more than the protection against humiliation , it is a tool to prevent others from acting on incomplete information .
If everyone knew everything about everyone then we 'd be a very tolerant people that probably preemptively executed or isolated the hopelessly sociopathic .
The problem is that such a world is impossible since we can not know what a person is thinking , nor monitor them all the time , nor remember that much information even if it were available .
Therefore , we 're forced to make decisions about people given our very limited information on them .
Since it 's nearly impossible to be completely independent of other humans , we must do what we can to guide their opinions and decisions in a way that benefits us .
This is necessary for both gene propagation and rational happiness .
As for genetics , traits that enable us to have the greatest number of progeny are selected for .
This means that our emotions are beneficial for this , and most likely happiness itself is a reward for getting closer to this goal .
Either way , we are what we are .
These traits do n't work against us , they are us .
Beyond that , there is n't really a " humiliation " gene .
There are genes that construct neurons which form fairly random neural networks , and genes that provide feedback to shape these networks into something evolutionarily useful .
Besides genes , human society also shapes these networks , and there 's an evolutionary benefit to emulating successful behaviors .
Without doing so a human can not achieve a high level of functionality , since that would be akin to the first caveman building a car ( then insuring it ) .
While it 's true that you could probably mold your " happiness " to not be at all dependent on others , how is that beneficial ?
If something displeases you then you have two ways to solve that problem .
The first is to change yourself so that it no longer displeases you , and the other is to change it .
Privacy is a means of preemptively changing society , or at least how you fit into it .
It 's a perfectly valid solution , and one that does n't compromise your own personal existance .
OTOH , if it does n't work for you then ignoring others is always an option .
It is just more logical to try privacy first since it 's much easier to try the former then switch to the latter if it does n't work than vice versa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Privacy is more than the protection against humiliation, it is a tool to prevent others from acting on incomplete information.
If everyone knew everything about everyone then we'd be a very tolerant people that probably preemptively executed or isolated the hopelessly sociopathic.
The problem is that such a world is impossible since we cannot know what a person is thinking, nor monitor them all the time, nor remember that much information even if it were available.
Therefore, we're forced to make decisions about people given our very limited information on them.
Since it's nearly impossible to be completely independent of other humans, we must do what we can to guide their opinions and decisions in a way that benefits us.
This is necessary for both gene propagation and rational happiness.
As for genetics, traits that enable us to have the greatest number of progeny are selected for.
This means that our emotions are beneficial for this, and most likely happiness itself is a reward for getting closer to this goal.
Either way, we are what we are.
These traits don't work against us, they are us.
Beyond that, there isn't really a "humiliation" gene.
There are genes that construct neurons which form fairly random neural networks, and genes that provide feedback to shape these networks into something evolutionarily useful.
Besides genes, human society also shapes these networks, and there's an evolutionary benefit to emulating successful behaviors.
Without doing so a human cannot achieve a high level of functionality, since that would be akin to the first caveman building a car (then insuring it).
While it's true that you could probably mold your "happiness" to not be at all dependent on others, how is that beneficial?
If something displeases you then you have two ways to solve that problem.
The first is to change yourself so that it no longer displeases you, and the other is to change it.
Privacy is a means of preemptively changing society, or at least how you fit into it.
It's a perfectly valid solution, and one that doesn't compromise your own personal existance.
OTOH, if it doesn't work for you then ignoring others is always an option.
It is just more logical to try privacy first since it's much easier to try the former then switch to the latter if it doesn't work than vice versa.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709926</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30711930</id>
	<title>Re:A simple cure - if you can't beat 'em...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263051240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take a look into becoming a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S\_corp" title="wikipedia.org">S Corporation</a> [wikipedia.org]...that way is a great way to go, especially as a one person corporation. <p>
You avoid the double taxation or a normal corp.....income falls through to personal tax after all write-offs.</p><p>
Nice thing too..you can save tax money from SS and medicare. You pay yourself a reasonable salary according to IRS definitions...and you only have to pay SS and medicare on that portion of your income.  Example, you bring in $100K billed in. You pay yourself  $40K salary....you only pay SS and medicare on that $40K. The remaining $60K...you just pay state and federal taxes on. Of course you write off purchases, mileage, etc...from that $60K before it falls through on your personal taxes...so, it is less than that..etc.</p><p>
Definitely worth looking into, especially if you are a contractor...hey, it is about the only way to keep your hard earned money from U. Sam these days, and I gotta think that SS and medicare taxation is gonna skyrocket soon if congress has its way.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look into becoming a S Corporation [ wikipedia.org ] ...that way is a great way to go , especially as a one person corporation .
You avoid the double taxation or a normal corp.....income falls through to personal tax after all write-offs .
Nice thing too..you can save tax money from SS and medicare .
You pay yourself a reasonable salary according to IRS definitions...and you only have to pay SS and medicare on that portion of your income .
Example , you bring in $ 100K billed in .
You pay yourself $ 40K salary....you only pay SS and medicare on that $ 40K .
The remaining $ 60K...you just pay state and federal taxes on .
Of course you write off purchases , mileage , etc...from that $ 60K before it falls through on your personal taxes...so , it is less than that..etc .
Definitely worth looking into , especially if you are a contractor...hey , it is about the only way to keep your hard earned money from U. Sam these days , and I got ta think that SS and medicare taxation is gon na skyrocket soon if congress has its way.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look into becoming a S Corporation [wikipedia.org]...that way is a great way to go, especially as a one person corporation.
You avoid the double taxation or a normal corp.....income falls through to personal tax after all write-offs.
Nice thing too..you can save tax money from SS and medicare.
You pay yourself a reasonable salary according to IRS definitions...and you only have to pay SS and medicare on that portion of your income.
Example, you bring in $100K billed in.
You pay yourself  $40K salary....you only pay SS and medicare on that $40K.
The remaining $60K...you just pay state and federal taxes on.
Of course you write off purchases, mileage, etc...from that $60K before it falls through on your personal taxes...so, it is less than that..etc.
Definitely worth looking into, especially if you are a contractor...hey, it is about the only way to keep your hard earned money from U. Sam these days, and I gotta think that SS and medicare taxation is gonna skyrocket soon if congress has its way.....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708474</id>
	<title>Lie on social networking sites</title>
	<author>ickleberry</author>
	<datestamp>1263064380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Say you are gone on an awsome holiday in Spain, post reasonably well photoshopped pictures of you having a great time over there, pretend to be a member of several societies you have no interest in. When people question you about it just say "sort of lost interest in that a while back"<br> <br>

Add friends by brute force, find randomers, try to add a bunch of their friends, move on to the next randomer and do the same thing. A significant number will accept your request? Why? because most people on those sites are attention seeking whores. <br> <br>

Have several profiles you use for different groups of people (who shall never meet), each with their own collection of random friends and false memories from years spent abroad.<br> <br>

The more charismatic you appear to be on these social sites, the more people you appear to be seen having a good time with the more people will trust you and the more employers will want to hire you. and it won't matter a damn who'se basement you live in and what sort of a van you drive past the local school <br> <br>

If you want you can even provide false status updates, its not like anyone will ever notice except those who deserve to be lead astray anyway. Say you are in Starbucks sipping a caramellate when really you are out hunting with a high-powered rifle or doing some other activity others might not be comfortable with</htmltext>
<tokenext>Say you are gone on an awsome holiday in Spain , post reasonably well photoshopped pictures of you having a great time over there , pretend to be a member of several societies you have no interest in .
When people question you about it just say " sort of lost interest in that a while back " Add friends by brute force , find randomers , try to add a bunch of their friends , move on to the next randomer and do the same thing .
A significant number will accept your request ?
Why ? because most people on those sites are attention seeking whores .
Have several profiles you use for different groups of people ( who shall never meet ) , each with their own collection of random friends and false memories from years spent abroad .
The more charismatic you appear to be on these social sites , the more people you appear to be seen having a good time with the more people will trust you and the more employers will want to hire you .
and it wo n't matter a damn who'se basement you live in and what sort of a van you drive past the local school If you want you can even provide false status updates , its not like anyone will ever notice except those who deserve to be lead astray anyway .
Say you are in Starbucks sipping a caramellate when really you are out hunting with a high-powered rifle or doing some other activity others might not be comfortable with</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say you are gone on an awsome holiday in Spain, post reasonably well photoshopped pictures of you having a great time over there, pretend to be a member of several societies you have no interest in.
When people question you about it just say "sort of lost interest in that a while back" 

Add friends by brute force, find randomers, try to add a bunch of their friends, move on to the next randomer and do the same thing.
A significant number will accept your request?
Why? because most people on those sites are attention seeking whores.
Have several profiles you use for different groups of people (who shall never meet), each with their own collection of random friends and false memories from years spent abroad.
The more charismatic you appear to be on these social sites, the more people you appear to be seen having a good time with the more people will trust you and the more employers will want to hire you.
and it won't matter a damn who'se basement you live in and what sort of a van you drive past the local school  

If you want you can even provide false status updates, its not like anyone will ever notice except those who deserve to be lead astray anyway.
Say you are in Starbucks sipping a caramellate when really you are out hunting with a high-powered rifle or doing some other activity others might not be comfortable with</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708562</id>
	<title>Re:Lie on social networking sites</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1263065100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I remember correctly Facebook used to require some sort of verifiable email address issued from a school or work domain. They wouldn't accept hotmail/yahoo/gmail accounts specifically so people couldn't <i>easily</i> spam the site like this. I don't know if they still do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I remember correctly Facebook used to require some sort of verifiable email address issued from a school or work domain .
They would n't accept hotmail/yahoo/gmail accounts specifically so people could n't easily spam the site like this .
I do n't know if they still do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I remember correctly Facebook used to require some sort of verifiable email address issued from a school or work domain.
They wouldn't accept hotmail/yahoo/gmail accounts specifically so people couldn't easily spam the site like this.
I don't know if they still do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710342</id>
	<title>Re:Lie on social networking sites</title>
	<author>The End Of Days</author>
	<datestamp>1263038280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, as a general principle, deriding people who are social doesn't really make you a better person.  I get the whole gallant loner nerd ethic.  Its basis is as false as the idea of the noble poor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , as a general principle , deriding people who are social does n't really make you a better person .
I get the whole gallant loner nerd ethic .
Its basis is as false as the idea of the noble poor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, as a general principle, deriding people who are social doesn't really make you a better person.
I get the whole gallant loner nerd ethic.
Its basis is as false as the idea of the noble poor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709926</id>
	<title>Privacy is not needed</title>
	<author>happy monday</author>
	<datestamp>1263034200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The desire for privacy arises out of a concern for what others think of you, a concern for your status, and the desire not to be humiliated. But too great a concern for what others think of us, our social status in relation to others, and a great fear of humiliation, from which the desire for privacy stems, all result from our having evolved in an environment where higher social status was selected for due to the statistical accident that it generated more offspring which inherited the trait of desiring high status. Beyond a certain level, therefore, all the benefits of status are benefits to our genetic material, not to us as individuals - Expending effort to preserve a trait the ultimate function of which is to preserve itself is ridiculous in the context of what we have come to understand as human wellbeing. It is wasted effort, since it is not used for our own fulfilment, but to ensure that the trait to preserve the trait is inherited by as many individuals as possible. To acquire status which is only beneficial to the trait for acquiring status is stupid, therefore the psychological (pre-programmed by evolution) emphasis we place on our own status is also stupid, and what's more, it causes inestimable damage to our welfare. The desire for privacy is a result of this obsession with status and our place in relation to others, and the accompanying fear of humiliation. We have to let go of these things. Really, it doesn't matter if your neighbours see that picture of you in women's underwear. Really, it doesn't. Let go of it. Humiliation is a purely imagined, purely psychological pain. Let go of it. It is your instincts making you feel like that, instincts which do not care about your happiness, which in fact rely on you never being happy to ensure they are passed on to your offspring - your constant striving for success, which causes you so much stress and effort, your constant dissatisfaction with your status, your misery, is solely a result of this instinct which has been blindly selected for because those with it, while less happy, outnumbered those who didn't have it. We can remove it from ourselves by ignoring it. It is not that important to have high status, endless wealth. You only need one house, one partner, enough food for your family, you don't need dozens of houses, dozens of cars. We are psychologically unbalanced, humanity, because of evolution, and the insecure desire for privacy, the fear of being exposed in society, is a result of this, and is illogical. Let go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The desire for privacy arises out of a concern for what others think of you , a concern for your status , and the desire not to be humiliated .
But too great a concern for what others think of us , our social status in relation to others , and a great fear of humiliation , from which the desire for privacy stems , all result from our having evolved in an environment where higher social status was selected for due to the statistical accident that it generated more offspring which inherited the trait of desiring high status .
Beyond a certain level , therefore , all the benefits of status are benefits to our genetic material , not to us as individuals - Expending effort to preserve a trait the ultimate function of which is to preserve itself is ridiculous in the context of what we have come to understand as human wellbeing .
It is wasted effort , since it is not used for our own fulfilment , but to ensure that the trait to preserve the trait is inherited by as many individuals as possible .
To acquire status which is only beneficial to the trait for acquiring status is stupid , therefore the psychological ( pre-programmed by evolution ) emphasis we place on our own status is also stupid , and what 's more , it causes inestimable damage to our welfare .
The desire for privacy is a result of this obsession with status and our place in relation to others , and the accompanying fear of humiliation .
We have to let go of these things .
Really , it does n't matter if your neighbours see that picture of you in women 's underwear .
Really , it does n't .
Let go of it .
Humiliation is a purely imagined , purely psychological pain .
Let go of it .
It is your instincts making you feel like that , instincts which do not care about your happiness , which in fact rely on you never being happy to ensure they are passed on to your offspring - your constant striving for success , which causes you so much stress and effort , your constant dissatisfaction with your status , your misery , is solely a result of this instinct which has been blindly selected for because those with it , while less happy , outnumbered those who did n't have it .
We can remove it from ourselves by ignoring it .
It is not that important to have high status , endless wealth .
You only need one house , one partner , enough food for your family , you do n't need dozens of houses , dozens of cars .
We are psychologically unbalanced , humanity , because of evolution , and the insecure desire for privacy , the fear of being exposed in society , is a result of this , and is illogical .
Let go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The desire for privacy arises out of a concern for what others think of you, a concern for your status, and the desire not to be humiliated.
But too great a concern for what others think of us, our social status in relation to others, and a great fear of humiliation, from which the desire for privacy stems, all result from our having evolved in an environment where higher social status was selected for due to the statistical accident that it generated more offspring which inherited the trait of desiring high status.
Beyond a certain level, therefore, all the benefits of status are benefits to our genetic material, not to us as individuals - Expending effort to preserve a trait the ultimate function of which is to preserve itself is ridiculous in the context of what we have come to understand as human wellbeing.
It is wasted effort, since it is not used for our own fulfilment, but to ensure that the trait to preserve the trait is inherited by as many individuals as possible.
To acquire status which is only beneficial to the trait for acquiring status is stupid, therefore the psychological (pre-programmed by evolution) emphasis we place on our own status is also stupid, and what's more, it causes inestimable damage to our welfare.
The desire for privacy is a result of this obsession with status and our place in relation to others, and the accompanying fear of humiliation.
We have to let go of these things.
Really, it doesn't matter if your neighbours see that picture of you in women's underwear.
Really, it doesn't.
Let go of it.
Humiliation is a purely imagined, purely psychological pain.
Let go of it.
It is your instincts making you feel like that, instincts which do not care about your happiness, which in fact rely on you never being happy to ensure they are passed on to your offspring - your constant striving for success, which causes you so much stress and effort, your constant dissatisfaction with your status, your misery, is solely a result of this instinct which has been blindly selected for because those with it, while less happy, outnumbered those who didn't have it.
We can remove it from ourselves by ignoring it.
It is not that important to have high status, endless wealth.
You only need one house, one partner, enough food for your family, you don't need dozens of houses, dozens of cars.
We are psychologically unbalanced, humanity, because of evolution, and the insecure desire for privacy, the fear of being exposed in society, is a result of this, and is illogical.
Let go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30711266</id>
	<title>Re:about you, but not --by-- you</title>
	<author>whiplashx</author>
	<datestamp>1263046140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My first thought on this whole line of question is that protecting our privacy is the short term goal, but shouldn't the long term goal be to, well, be able to be free?</p><p>Personally, expressing myself to the world is quite important, and I willfully show everything to everyone on facebook, because I feel the most confident about myself that way. I smoke pot once or twice a year and I'm a computer programmer at Bioware, and if they want to fire me because I shared some personal information online, then that's their loss. (N.B. - I don't share this information with my parents, because I still prefer some privacy.)</p><p>So I interpret this whole thing positively. If everyone just damn well admits that they smoke pot, they can't ostracize the one who does it openly. There will always be some sense of privacy required (anything you aren't comfortable sharing) but my opinion is that the first concern is protecting your right to share information without the fear of reprisal.</p><p>-Thomas</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My first thought on this whole line of question is that protecting our privacy is the short term goal , but should n't the long term goal be to , well , be able to be free ? Personally , expressing myself to the world is quite important , and I willfully show everything to everyone on facebook , because I feel the most confident about myself that way .
I smoke pot once or twice a year and I 'm a computer programmer at Bioware , and if they want to fire me because I shared some personal information online , then that 's their loss .
( N.B. - I do n't share this information with my parents , because I still prefer some privacy .
) So I interpret this whole thing positively .
If everyone just damn well admits that they smoke pot , they ca n't ostracize the one who does it openly .
There will always be some sense of privacy required ( anything you are n't comfortable sharing ) but my opinion is that the first concern is protecting your right to share information without the fear of reprisal.-Thomas</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My first thought on this whole line of question is that protecting our privacy is the short term goal, but shouldn't the long term goal be to, well, be able to be free?Personally, expressing myself to the world is quite important, and I willfully show everything to everyone on facebook, because I feel the most confident about myself that way.
I smoke pot once or twice a year and I'm a computer programmer at Bioware, and if they want to fire me because I shared some personal information online, then that's their loss.
(N.B. - I don't share this information with my parents, because I still prefer some privacy.
)So I interpret this whole thing positively.
If everyone just damn well admits that they smoke pot, they can't ostracize the one who does it openly.
There will always be some sense of privacy required (anything you aren't comfortable sharing) but my opinion is that the first concern is protecting your right to share information without the fear of reprisal.-Thomas</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708576</id>
	<title>I notice that Dr. O'Hara is not a lawyer.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263065220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>n/t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>n/t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>n/t</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708860</id>
	<title>Me Too:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263067800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I once had a LinkedIn account. Well, I did for all of 6 weeks. Then I realised how much info there was about me that could be used to steal my identity. I deleted it straight away.</p><p>I also don't do FaceBook etc or even FriendsDisunited (aparently I hve lots of old school chums who are dying to contact me every day)</p><p>I was the victim of identity fraud in 1973 so I know what it is like to have someone impersonate you complete with a forged passport.</p><p>All my forum access uses pseudonyms and I have at leat 6 different email addys.</p><p>If you tell the workd about every detail of your life then if you get taken for a ride then all I can say is SUCKER. You asked for it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I once had a LinkedIn account .
Well , I did for all of 6 weeks .
Then I realised how much info there was about me that could be used to steal my identity .
I deleted it straight away.I also do n't do FaceBook etc or even FriendsDisunited ( aparently I hve lots of old school chums who are dying to contact me every day ) I was the victim of identity fraud in 1973 so I know what it is like to have someone impersonate you complete with a forged passport.All my forum access uses pseudonyms and I have at leat 6 different email addys.If you tell the workd about every detail of your life then if you get taken for a ride then all I can say is SUCKER .
You asked for it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I once had a LinkedIn account.
Well, I did for all of 6 weeks.
Then I realised how much info there was about me that could be used to steal my identity.
I deleted it straight away.I also don't do FaceBook etc or even FriendsDisunited (aparently I hve lots of old school chums who are dying to contact me every day)I was the victim of identity fraud in 1973 so I know what it is like to have someone impersonate you complete with a forged passport.All my forum access uses pseudonyms and I have at leat 6 different email addys.If you tell the workd about every detail of your life then if you get taken for a ride then all I can say is SUCKER.
You asked for it</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709668</id>
	<title>Re:There will always be privacy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263031560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like Intellius' new service allowing people with mobile devices to run a background check on anyone they bump into from their mobile phone.</p><p>It's repulsive.  Pretty soon we'll all be running around judging each other based on the spewage from some giant database.  Intellius' DateCheck is just another example of how we're degenerating as a society.  It's already become common practice for people to do background checks for employees, why not the person you meet in a bar?</p><p>It's just ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like Intellius ' new service allowing people with mobile devices to run a background check on anyone they bump into from their mobile phone.It 's repulsive .
Pretty soon we 'll all be running around judging each other based on the spewage from some giant database .
Intellius ' DateCheck is just another example of how we 're degenerating as a society .
It 's already become common practice for people to do background checks for employees , why not the person you meet in a bar ? It 's just ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like Intellius' new service allowing people with mobile devices to run a background check on anyone they bump into from their mobile phone.It's repulsive.
Pretty soon we'll all be running around judging each other based on the spewage from some giant database.
Intellius' DateCheck is just another example of how we're degenerating as a society.
It's already become common practice for people to do background checks for employees, why not the person you meet in a bar?It's just ridiculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709136</id>
	<title>about you, but not --by-- you</title>
	<author>Onymous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1263069840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... I, for one, do not post the intimate details of my life on the Internet.</p></div><p>I think the point is not what <em>you</em> reveal, but <em>what is revealed about you</em>.</p><p>If the norm is everyone posts private details about their lives which includes their private interactions with you...  Then your reasonable expectation of privacy doesn't include your puking Friday night.  Maybe not even what happened with that person on your friend's couch at 3 AM.  What becomes public about your life is not only what you report, but <b>what others report about you</b>.</p><p>If at some time law (specifically interpretation, but maybe also legislation) starts <em>obviously</em> including the ramifications of our increasingly visible intimate lives, there might be some backlash.  I'm having a hard time seeing the particular form such a law or interpretation would take.  Maybe something like a precedent that it's okay for employers to use services that link together all references to you from friends' social site posts...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>::shrug::</p><p>The point is that what is considered "private" is changing because all your friends are posting your and their lives publicly.  It's not about what <em>you</em> post.  If you want a non-public life, you'll have to spend time only with people who won't post your life.</p><p>I might recommend more "me" time.  Perhaps alone in the basement.  If you want social interaction, online chatting is good.  But use a pseudonym.  And maybe Tor.  And you should probably make up a different identity or two that's hard to link with the real you.  Like you're a 15-year-old female elf or something.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... I , for one , do not post the intimate details of my life on the Internet.I think the point is not what you reveal , but what is revealed about you.If the norm is everyone posts private details about their lives which includes their private interactions with you... Then your reasonable expectation of privacy does n't include your puking Friday night .
Maybe not even what happened with that person on your friend 's couch at 3 AM .
What becomes public about your life is not only what you report , but what others report about you.If at some time law ( specifically interpretation , but maybe also legislation ) starts obviously including the ramifications of our increasingly visible intimate lives , there might be some backlash .
I 'm having a hard time seeing the particular form such a law or interpretation would take .
Maybe something like a precedent that it 's okay for employers to use services that link together all references to you from friends ' social site posts... : : shrug : : The point is that what is considered " private " is changing because all your friends are posting your and their lives publicly .
It 's not about what you post .
If you want a non-public life , you 'll have to spend time only with people who wo n't post your life.I might recommend more " me " time .
Perhaps alone in the basement .
If you want social interaction , online chatting is good .
But use a pseudonym .
And maybe Tor .
And you should probably make up a different identity or two that 's hard to link with the real you .
Like you 're a 15-year-old female elf or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... I, for one, do not post the intimate details of my life on the Internet.I think the point is not what you reveal, but what is revealed about you.If the norm is everyone posts private details about their lives which includes their private interactions with you...  Then your reasonable expectation of privacy doesn't include your puking Friday night.
Maybe not even what happened with that person on your friend's couch at 3 AM.
What becomes public about your life is not only what you report, but what others report about you.If at some time law (specifically interpretation, but maybe also legislation) starts obviously including the ramifications of our increasingly visible intimate lives, there might be some backlash.
I'm having a hard time seeing the particular form such a law or interpretation would take.
Maybe something like a precedent that it's okay for employers to use services that link together all references to you from friends' social site posts... ::shrug::The point is that what is considered "private" is changing because all your friends are posting your and their lives publicly.
It's not about what you post.
If you want a non-public life, you'll have to spend time only with people who won't post your life.I might recommend more "me" time.
Perhaps alone in the basement.
If you want social interaction, online chatting is good.
But use a pseudonym.
And maybe Tor.
And you should probably make up a different identity or two that's hard to link with the real you.
Like you're a 15-year-old female elf or something.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708782</id>
	<title>Sir John of MI6</title>
	<author>Max(10)</author>
	<datestamp>1263066960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Mainly that's because, as an adult, I have an awareness of consequence (having suffered through enough such consequences over the years to have gained an appreciation of the power of my own stupidity.)"</p><p><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197562/MI6-chief-blows-cover-wifes-Facebook-account-reveals-family-holidays-showbiz-friends-links-David-Irving.html" title="dailymail.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Sir John</a> [dailymail.co.uk], is that you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Mainly that 's because , as an adult , I have an awareness of consequence ( having suffered through enough such consequences over the years to have gained an appreciation of the power of my own stupidity .
) " Sir John [ dailymail.co.uk ] , is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Mainly that's because, as an adult, I have an awareness of consequence (having suffered through enough such consequences over the years to have gained an appreciation of the power of my own stupidity.
)"Sir John [dailymail.co.uk], is that you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708526</id>
	<title>Re:Good Morning.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263064740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fuck Myspace.</p><p>Fuck Facebook.</p><p>Fuck Twitter.</p><p>And a special "fuck you" to attention-starved fucks who use any of the above.</p></div><p>People are media whores - Bill Mahr.</p><p>We, as a whole, are a society made up of mostly narcissists; whether it is folks who want to be on some reality tv show, the above mentioned websites, or to the losers who have the loud pipes on their motorcycles.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck Myspace.Fuck Facebook.Fuck Twitter.And a special " fuck you " to attention-starved fucks who use any of the above.People are media whores - Bill Mahr.We , as a whole , are a society made up of mostly narcissists ; whether it is folks who want to be on some reality tv show , the above mentioned websites , or to the losers who have the loud pipes on their motorcycles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck Myspace.Fuck Facebook.Fuck Twitter.And a special "fuck you" to attention-starved fucks who use any of the above.People are media whores - Bill Mahr.We, as a whole, are a society made up of mostly narcissists; whether it is folks who want to be on some reality tv show, the above mentioned websites, or to the losers who have the loud pipes on their motorcycles.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710866</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't it contextual?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263042960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Duane?  Surely something like Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Shackille, Winston or Sambo would have been more appropriate?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Duane ?
Surely something like Rufus , Rastus , Remus , Toby , Carslisle , Carlton , Hey-You ! -Yes-you ! , Shackille , Winston or Sambo would have been more appropriate ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duane?
Surely something like Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Shackille, Winston or Sambo would have been more appropriate?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708502</id>
	<title>There's different things</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1263064500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1- stuff you choose to put online. There may be a bit of an expectation of privacy there (only my friends should see some of my facebook), but even then you're taking the risk to trust a third party to enforce some privacy for you. I'm fairly sure facebook and co commit to NOTHING regarding the safety, privacy... of your data, but that most people do not realize it.</p><p>2- stuff you broadcast unintentionally. My brother uses gmail and is into mountain climbing and Canada... all the Google ads on his Mac are about these 2 subjects.I got treated to 2 days of Monster Cables ads last time I looked for a cable (hint for google: once I'Ive bought a cable, these adds become irrelevant). I'm sure most people expect privacy, they do not realize that their every move on the web is tracked. Pretty much like carrying a GPS tracker + mike + being filmed at all times.</p><p>3- stuff that gets taken from a private place, be it my PC or my home. full expectation of privacy there, and clearly criminal to take it.</p><p>We French have a law (roughly called "IT and privacy) that guarantees us the right to see and amend any data about us retained in computer form. I'm of half a mind to request my file from google, for curiosity's sake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1- stuff you choose to put online .
There may be a bit of an expectation of privacy there ( only my friends should see some of my facebook ) , but even then you 're taking the risk to trust a third party to enforce some privacy for you .
I 'm fairly sure facebook and co commit to NOTHING regarding the safety , privacy... of your data , but that most people do not realize it.2- stuff you broadcast unintentionally .
My brother uses gmail and is into mountain climbing and Canada... all the Google ads on his Mac are about these 2 subjects.I got treated to 2 days of Monster Cables ads last time I looked for a cable ( hint for google : once I'Ive bought a cable , these adds become irrelevant ) .
I 'm sure most people expect privacy , they do not realize that their every move on the web is tracked .
Pretty much like carrying a GPS tracker + mike + being filmed at all times.3- stuff that gets taken from a private place , be it my PC or my home .
full expectation of privacy there , and clearly criminal to take it.We French have a law ( roughly called " IT and privacy ) that guarantees us the right to see and amend any data about us retained in computer form .
I 'm of half a mind to request my file from google , for curiosity 's sake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1- stuff you choose to put online.
There may be a bit of an expectation of privacy there (only my friends should see some of my facebook), but even then you're taking the risk to trust a third party to enforce some privacy for you.
I'm fairly sure facebook and co commit to NOTHING regarding the safety, privacy... of your data, but that most people do not realize it.2- stuff you broadcast unintentionally.
My brother uses gmail and is into mountain climbing and Canada... all the Google ads on his Mac are about these 2 subjects.I got treated to 2 days of Monster Cables ads last time I looked for a cable (hint for google: once I'Ive bought a cable, these adds become irrelevant).
I'm sure most people expect privacy, they do not realize that their every move on the web is tracked.
Pretty much like carrying a GPS tracker + mike + being filmed at all times.3- stuff that gets taken from a private place, be it my PC or my home.
full expectation of privacy there, and clearly criminal to take it.We French have a law (roughly called "IT and privacy) that guarantees us the right to see and amend any data about us retained in computer form.
I'm of half a mind to request my file from google, for curiosity's sake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30713378</id>
	<title>Geological Analogy At Its Limits</title>
	<author>PingPongBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1263116340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With analogy to long term erosion, everything disappears. Privacy would be completely gone. How would be achieved? Imagine machines that can read everything. Already, there are radar devices and whatnot to probe beneath the ground, inside of oceans, etc. Is it such a stretch for machines to observe your actions behind walls, to the level of detail, say, to know what your are typing on a keyboard. You would be at risk of losing not only privacy but also identity.</p><p>What would the world be like then? At the very least some people will hide behind thick walls or Faraday cages. Some will opt out of being registered anywhere, but may carry many aliases. Anonymity cannot be attacked or usurped. The identity basis of contract law would be tested to its limits. A world devoid of privacy may suffer from the dual of being devoid of foolproof biometrics.</p><p>One option would be to plot out in minutiae the details of the days ahead so that an alibi can be established at all times. This might be a workable ounce of prevention. Another option is to hoard and hide physical assets and stake out as much dominion as possible. Technology just doesn't make it easier for people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With analogy to long term erosion , everything disappears .
Privacy would be completely gone .
How would be achieved ?
Imagine machines that can read everything .
Already , there are radar devices and whatnot to probe beneath the ground , inside of oceans , etc .
Is it such a stretch for machines to observe your actions behind walls , to the level of detail , say , to know what your are typing on a keyboard .
You would be at risk of losing not only privacy but also identity.What would the world be like then ?
At the very least some people will hide behind thick walls or Faraday cages .
Some will opt out of being registered anywhere , but may carry many aliases .
Anonymity can not be attacked or usurped .
The identity basis of contract law would be tested to its limits .
A world devoid of privacy may suffer from the dual of being devoid of foolproof biometrics.One option would be to plot out in minutiae the details of the days ahead so that an alibi can be established at all times .
This might be a workable ounce of prevention .
Another option is to hoard and hide physical assets and stake out as much dominion as possible .
Technology just does n't make it easier for people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With analogy to long term erosion, everything disappears.
Privacy would be completely gone.
How would be achieved?
Imagine machines that can read everything.
Already, there are radar devices and whatnot to probe beneath the ground, inside of oceans, etc.
Is it such a stretch for machines to observe your actions behind walls, to the level of detail, say, to know what your are typing on a keyboard.
You would be at risk of losing not only privacy but also identity.What would the world be like then?
At the very least some people will hide behind thick walls or Faraday cages.
Some will opt out of being registered anywhere, but may carry many aliases.
Anonymity cannot be attacked or usurped.
The identity basis of contract law would be tested to its limits.
A world devoid of privacy may suffer from the dual of being devoid of foolproof biometrics.One option would be to plot out in minutiae the details of the days ahead so that an alibi can be established at all times.
This might be a workable ounce of prevention.
Another option is to hoard and hide physical assets and stake out as much dominion as possible.
Technology just doesn't make it easier for people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709196</id>
	<title>Please go home</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1263070320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are just repeating tabloid guff, so either you don't really live here or you just commute from your company flat to the office and watch television in the evenings.<p>I too can manage lazy stereotypes about many cultures - but I've worked in enough countries to know they are nonsense. And I know that the only people who complain about political correctness in the UK are private school educated drones working for right wing newspapers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are just repeating tabloid guff , so either you do n't really live here or you just commute from your company flat to the office and watch television in the evenings.I too can manage lazy stereotypes about many cultures - but I 've worked in enough countries to know they are nonsense .
And I know that the only people who complain about political correctness in the UK are private school educated drones working for right wing newspapers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are just repeating tabloid guff, so either you don't really live here or you just commute from your company flat to the office and watch television in the evenings.I too can manage lazy stereotypes about many cultures - but I've worked in enough countries to know they are nonsense.
And I know that the only people who complain about political correctness in the UK are private school educated drones working for right wing newspapers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708328</id>
	<title>There will always be privacy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263063180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry, there will always be privacy. It will just be solely reserved for corporations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , there will always be privacy .
It will just be solely reserved for corporations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, there will always be privacy.
It will just be solely reserved for corporations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709742</id>
	<title>Re:There's different things</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263032400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot one:</p><p>4- stuff others choose to put online/broadcast about you.  YOU might have an expectation of privacy, but people are generally not all that concerned about the privacy of others unless it impacts them in some direct way.</p><p>The way this impacts our perception of privacy is that suddenly any place where a facebook addict goes becomes a public space... even if it's in some cabin in the middle of nowhere surrounded by "Private Property, No Trespassing" signs.  One tweet from that location, and its geolocation is published, along with what this social network dependent is doing there, and possibly what *everyone else* is doing there.</p><p>The erosion is that we can no longer expect those we let into our private lives to be intelligent enough to keep information private.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot one : 4- stuff others choose to put online/broadcast about you .
YOU might have an expectation of privacy , but people are generally not all that concerned about the privacy of others unless it impacts them in some direct way.The way this impacts our perception of privacy is that suddenly any place where a facebook addict goes becomes a public space... even if it 's in some cabin in the middle of nowhere surrounded by " Private Property , No Trespassing " signs .
One tweet from that location , and its geolocation is published , along with what this social network dependent is doing there , and possibly what * everyone else * is doing there.The erosion is that we can no longer expect those we let into our private lives to be intelligent enough to keep information private .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot one:4- stuff others choose to put online/broadcast about you.
YOU might have an expectation of privacy, but people are generally not all that concerned about the privacy of others unless it impacts them in some direct way.The way this impacts our perception of privacy is that suddenly any place where a facebook addict goes becomes a public space... even if it's in some cabin in the middle of nowhere surrounded by "Private Property, No Trespassing" signs.
One tweet from that location, and its geolocation is published, along with what this social network dependent is doing there, and possibly what *everyone else* is doing there.The erosion is that we can no longer expect those we let into our private lives to be intelligent enough to keep information private.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30744088</id>
	<title>Re:Good Morning.</title>
	<author>psithurism</author>
	<datestamp>1263297300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quite right, I'm sure I could also try to make 500friends in RL and at least 100 of them would accept. That doesn't mean I actually have 100 friends.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...wait I've confused myself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite right , I 'm sure I could also try to make 500friends in RL and at least 100 of them would accept .
That does n't mean I actually have 100 friends .
...wait I 've confused myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite right, I'm sure I could also try to make 500friends in RL and at least 100 of them would accept.
That doesn't mean I actually have 100 friends.
...wait I've confused myself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708418</id>
	<title>Number please!</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1263063960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the days of yore, it was the girls that ran the telephone exchanges that served up the gossip.  Nowadays people publish gossip themselves.  The result is much the same though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the days of yore , it was the girls that ran the telephone exchanges that served up the gossip .
Nowadays people publish gossip themselves .
The result is much the same though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the days of yore, it was the girls that ran the telephone exchanges that served up the gossip.
Nowadays people publish gossip themselves.
The result is much the same though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710340</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263038220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'prowness' is a perfectly cromulent word. Being<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., I assume you meant pwnitudinationess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'prowness ' is a perfectly cromulent word .
Being /. , I assume you meant pwnitudinationess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'prowness' is a perfectly cromulent word.
Being /., I assume you meant pwnitudinationess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708986</id>
	<title>Re:Ha! You leave me out of this.</title>
	<author>Montezumaa</author>
	<datestamp>1263068760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I have never understood why people choose to stupidly post everything they are doing or thinking on these "social networking sites".  If people would adopt the stance that no one can be trusted to keep a secret, then people would not run into situations where they lose their jobs, or bomb on an interview due to running naked down a street and posting the video on Facebook or PedoSpace.</p><p>Yeah, it may seem humorous at the time, but posting stupid shit on the internet will always bite you in the end.  It is similar to picking the wrong spot to bury a dead hooker.  We have all been there at least once or twice...except for me...just saying...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I have never understood why people choose to stupidly post everything they are doing or thinking on these " social networking sites " .
If people would adopt the stance that no one can be trusted to keep a secret , then people would not run into situations where they lose their jobs , or bomb on an interview due to running naked down a street and posting the video on Facebook or PedoSpace.Yeah , it may seem humorous at the time , but posting stupid shit on the internet will always bite you in the end .
It is similar to picking the wrong spot to bury a dead hooker .
We have all been there at least once or twice...except for me...just saying.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I have never understood why people choose to stupidly post everything they are doing or thinking on these "social networking sites".
If people would adopt the stance that no one can be trusted to keep a secret, then people would not run into situations where they lose their jobs, or bomb on an interview due to running naked down a street and posting the video on Facebook or PedoSpace.Yeah, it may seem humorous at the time, but posting stupid shit on the internet will always bite you in the end.
It is similar to picking the wrong spot to bury a dead hooker.
We have all been there at least once or twice...except for me...just saying...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708650</id>
	<title>The commercialization of the net...</title>
	<author>MindPrison</author>
	<datestamp>1263065880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...is killing our freedom of speech.</p><p>When the internet became all too serious, you know...online markets becoming just like your next door store, and online places where you could meet - the government thought it was a good idea to make it mandatory to log everything you say and do, the internet was killed!<br>The internet used to be a free place - where thoughts and information could flow freely - and it was up to each individual how they processed the data they found - pretty much like in books, but faster, and uncensored by the publishing companies - making the internet a raw - but fair place.</p><p>The right to privacy is all about freedom, you have the right to think, say and have an opinion about everything in your life, you have the right to write a diary - and for others to stay out of your business if you wish - but with the "law" getting into the internet - these rights are being gradually destroyed, basically because they're taking a too keen interest in this place (which is essentially your and mine diary fused together).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...is killing our freedom of speech.When the internet became all too serious , you know...online markets becoming just like your next door store , and online places where you could meet - the government thought it was a good idea to make it mandatory to log everything you say and do , the internet was killed ! The internet used to be a free place - where thoughts and information could flow freely - and it was up to each individual how they processed the data they found - pretty much like in books , but faster , and uncensored by the publishing companies - making the internet a raw - but fair place.The right to privacy is all about freedom , you have the right to think , say and have an opinion about everything in your life , you have the right to write a diary - and for others to stay out of your business if you wish - but with the " law " getting into the internet - these rights are being gradually destroyed , basically because they 're taking a too keen interest in this place ( which is essentially your and mine diary fused together ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is killing our freedom of speech.When the internet became all too serious, you know...online markets becoming just like your next door store, and online places where you could meet - the government thought it was a good idea to make it mandatory to log everything you say and do, the internet was killed!The internet used to be a free place - where thoughts and information could flow freely - and it was up to each individual how they processed the data they found - pretty much like in books, but faster, and uncensored by the publishing companies - making the internet a raw - but fair place.The right to privacy is all about freedom, you have the right to think, say and have an opinion about everything in your life, you have the right to write a diary - and for others to stay out of your business if you wish - but with the "law" getting into the internet - these rights are being gradually destroyed, basically because they're taking a too keen interest in this place (which is essentially your and mine diary fused together).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710108</id>
	<title>Re:Don't see what the big deal is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263036240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's good... now what about your "friends" on facebook?  Do they share your same ethos?  Or are they talking about personal relationships and getting high at parties, or about pirating video, or some other ethically questionable/revealing activity?</p><p>Despite the fact that we try to keep it out of our court systems, "guilt by association" is embedded into the human psyche.  Even if they don't ever mention your name in the private details they choose to reveal, you're still linked to them.</p><p>This is why I don't have much of an issue with LinkedIn (EVERYONE is using it as a PR tool), but won't touch most social networking sites with a 10' firewall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's good... now what about your " friends " on facebook ?
Do they share your same ethos ?
Or are they talking about personal relationships and getting high at parties , or about pirating video , or some other ethically questionable/revealing activity ? Despite the fact that we try to keep it out of our court systems , " guilt by association " is embedded into the human psyche .
Even if they do n't ever mention your name in the private details they choose to reveal , you 're still linked to them.This is why I do n't have much of an issue with LinkedIn ( EVERYONE is using it as a PR tool ) , but wo n't touch most social networking sites with a 10 ' firewall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's good... now what about your "friends" on facebook?
Do they share your same ethos?
Or are they talking about personal relationships and getting high at parties, or about pirating video, or some other ethically questionable/revealing activity?Despite the fact that we try to keep it out of our court systems, "guilt by association" is embedded into the human psyche.
Even if they don't ever mention your name in the private details they choose to reveal, you're still linked to them.This is why I don't have much of an issue with LinkedIn (EVERYONE is using it as a PR tool), but won't touch most social networking sites with a 10' firewall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709026</id>
	<title>Yet again</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263069000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Given that the significant bulk of social networkers are American, this might mean 'American behavior' could cause changes in the interpretation of English law (which is not to say English people don't also post their intimate details on Facebook)."</p></div></blockquote><p>And here we have yet another European academic blaming me for problems in his own country.  I guess you don't have to fix things that are someone else's fault.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that the significant bulk of social networkers are American , this might mean 'American behavior ' could cause changes in the interpretation of English law ( which is not to say English people do n't also post their intimate details on Facebook ) .
" And here we have yet another European academic blaming me for problems in his own country .
I guess you do n't have to fix things that are someone else 's fault .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that the significant bulk of social networkers are American, this might mean 'American behavior' could cause changes in the interpretation of English law (which is not to say English people don't also post their intimate details on Facebook).
"And here we have yet another European academic blaming me for problems in his own country.
I guess you don't have to fix things that are someone else's fault.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709218</id>
	<title>Most Facebook Users are Not in the US</title>
	<author>monk</author>
	<datestamp>1263070620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least <a href="http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/05/facebook-demographics-age-and.html" title="oreilly.com">according to Ben Lorica</a> [oreilly.com] at O'Reilly Research. At the time of that post at least, the US made up about 35\% of Facebook users, and the US and UK and Candada together made up about 61\%. The US still had the most for a single country, but that's a long way from being the majority.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least according to Ben Lorica [ oreilly.com ] at O'Reilly Research .
At the time of that post at least , the US made up about 35 \ % of Facebook users , and the US and UK and Candada together made up about 61 \ % .
The US still had the most for a single country , but that 's a long way from being the majority .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least according to Ben Lorica [oreilly.com] at O'Reilly Research.
At the time of that post at least, the US made up about 35\% of Facebook users, and the US and UK and Candada together made up about 61\%.
The US still had the most for a single country, but that's a long way from being the majority.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709476</id>
	<title>Re:Logic fail</title>
	<author>Urza9814</author>
	<datestamp>1263029580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you post something on facebook, you don't just give that information to the people you are friends with, you also grant facebook permission to use that information. And if they want to then give that information to the police, that's their right. Just like if you tell your friend something and they go and tell the cops, that's perfectly fine also.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you post something on facebook , you do n't just give that information to the people you are friends with , you also grant facebook permission to use that information .
And if they want to then give that information to the police , that 's their right .
Just like if you tell your friend something and they go and tell the cops , that 's perfectly fine also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you post something on facebook, you don't just give that information to the people you are friends with, you also grant facebook permission to use that information.
And if they want to then give that information to the police, that's their right.
Just like if you tell your friend something and they go and tell the cops, that's perfectly fine also.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708640</id>
	<title>Re:Ha! You leave me out of this.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263065820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;That's probably true, but I, for one, do not post the intimate details of my life on the Internet.</p><p>Here's a quick 5 minute google search, knowing nothing about you but your slashdot userid. I didn't try crossreferencing to see if any of this information is right; I'm only interested in seeing where it lead.</p><p>You father was a physicist and electronics engineer. He lived in/around Bethesda, MD when you were growing up. You are most likely 55 to 65 years old. You lived in Illinois for a long time -- probably over 20 years. You ran a BBS in the mid-90s, shut down in 1995.</p><p>Your first name is Jim, last initial is K.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; That 's probably true , but I , for one , do not post the intimate details of my life on the Internet.Here 's a quick 5 minute google search , knowing nothing about you but your slashdot userid .
I did n't try crossreferencing to see if any of this information is right ; I 'm only interested in seeing where it lead.You father was a physicist and electronics engineer .
He lived in/around Bethesda , MD when you were growing up .
You are most likely 55 to 65 years old .
You lived in Illinois for a long time -- probably over 20 years .
You ran a BBS in the mid-90s , shut down in 1995.Your first name is Jim , last initial is K .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;That's probably true, but I, for one, do not post the intimate details of my life on the Internet.Here's a quick 5 minute google search, knowing nothing about you but your slashdot userid.
I didn't try crossreferencing to see if any of this information is right; I'm only interested in seeing where it lead.You father was a physicist and electronics engineer.
He lived in/around Bethesda, MD when you were growing up.
You are most likely 55 to 65 years old.
You lived in Illinois for a long time -- probably over 20 years.
You ran a BBS in the mid-90s, shut down in 1995.Your first name is Jim, last initial is K.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708466</id>
	<title>Expectation</title>
	<author>forand</author>
	<datestamp>1263064320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If i post all the intimate detail of my life to any social networking site, even if I only share with 'friends', I do not have a legal expectation of privacy. If I do not choose to share those details the fact that others do should have no effect on what is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy.' I do not see how this would hold up in a court of law. We have had exhibitionists (celebrities) in all societies for some time and yet their open lifestyles do not have an effect others rights.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If i post all the intimate detail of my life to any social networking site , even if I only share with 'friends ' , I do not have a legal expectation of privacy .
If I do not choose to share those details the fact that others do should have no effect on what is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy .
' I do not see how this would hold up in a court of law .
We have had exhibitionists ( celebrities ) in all societies for some time and yet their open lifestyles do not have an effect others rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If i post all the intimate detail of my life to any social networking site, even if I only share with 'friends', I do not have a legal expectation of privacy.
If I do not choose to share those details the fact that others do should have no effect on what is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy.
' I do not see how this would hold up in a court of law.
We have had exhibitionists (celebrities) in all societies for some time and yet their open lifestyles do not have an effect others rights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708880</id>
	<title>Re:There will always be privacy.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263067980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damnit! I wish there were an English version of this song:<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeGtUSA73\_g" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeGtUSA73\_g</a> [youtube.com]<br>It says just what you said, but in a really great way.<br>Anyone care to translate it?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Freiheit hat mit Deutschland selbstverst&#228;ndlich was zu tun,<br>sofern man wirtschaftlich dazu was beitr&#228;gt.<br>Manche m&#252;ssen unfrei bleiben. Keiner ist immun,<br>wenn er den Zug vers&#228;umt, der ihn dann freitr&#228;gt.<br>Wenn er den Zug nicht sieht und alles komplizieren mu&#223;,<br>tja, dann wird es Regeln geben, die er respektieren mu&#223;.<br>Dann wird ihm sein Arbeitgeber vielleicht sagen:<br>Meine Freiheit mu&#223; noch lang nicht deine Freiheit sein.<br>Meine Freiheit: Ja! Deine Freiheit: Nein!<br>Meine Freiheit wird von der Verfassung garantiert,<br>deine hat bis jetzt nicht interessiert.<br>Meine Freiheit hei&#223;t, da&#223; ich Gesch&#228;fte machen kann.<br>Und deine Freiheit hei&#223;t, du kriegst bei mir einen Posten.<br>Und da du meine Waren kaufen mu&#223;t, stell ich dich bei mir an.<br>Dadurch verursacht deine Freiheit keine Kosten.<br>Und es bleibt dabei, da&#223; meine Freiheit immer wieder meine Freiheit ist.<br>Deine Freiheit bleibt meiner einverleibt.<br>Und wenn ich meine Freiheit nicht hab, hast du deine Freiheit nicht.<br>Und meine Freiheit wird dadurch zu deiner Pflicht.<br>Und darum sag ich dir: Verteidig' meine Freiheit mit der Waffe in der Hand<br>und mit der Waffe in den H&#228;nden deiner Kinder!<br>Damit von deinen Kindern keines bei der Arbeit je vergi&#223;t, was Freiheit ist.<br>Meine Freiheit sei dir immer oberstes Gebot.<br>Meiner Freiheit bleibt treu bis in den Tod.<br>Wenn dir das vielleicht nicht logisch vorkommt, denk an eines blo&#223;:<br>Ohne meine Freiheit bist du arbeitslos.<br>Ja, Freiheit ist was anderes als Z&#252;gellosigkeit.<br>Freiheit hei&#223;t auch Flei&#223;, M&#228;nnlichkeit und Schwei&#223;.<br>Ich werd dir sagen, was ich heutzutag als freiheitlich empfind:<br>Die Dinge so zu lassen wie sie sind.<br>Drum ist in jedem Falle meine Freiheit wichtiger als deine Freiheit je.<br>Meine Freiheit: Yes! Deine Freiheit: Nee!<br>Meine Freiheit ist schon ein paar hundert Jahre alt.<br>Deine Freiheit kommt vielleicht schon bald.<br>Aber vorl&#228;ufig ist nichts aus deiner Freiheitsambition,<br>du hast noch keine Macht und keine Organisation.<br>Ich w&#228;r ja dumm, wenn ich auf meine Freiheit dir zulieb verzicht,<br>drum behalt ich meine Freiheit. Du kriegst deine Freiheit nicht. Noch nicht!</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damnit !
I wish there were an English version of this song : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = QeGtUSA73 \ _g [ youtube.com ] It says just what you said , but in a really great way.Anyone care to translate it ? Freiheit hat mit Deutschland selbstverst   ndlich was zu tun,sofern man wirtschaftlich dazu was beitr   gt.Manche m   ssen unfrei bleiben .
Keiner ist immun,wenn er den Zug vers   umt , der ihn dann freitr   gt.Wenn er den Zug nicht sieht und alles komplizieren mu   ,tja , dann wird es Regeln geben , die er respektieren mu   .Dann wird ihm sein Arbeitgeber vielleicht sagen : Meine Freiheit mu   noch lang nicht deine Freiheit sein.Meine Freiheit : Ja !
Deine Freiheit : Nein ! Meine Freiheit wird von der Verfassung garantiert,deine hat bis jetzt nicht interessiert.Meine Freiheit hei   t , da   ich Gesch   fte machen kann.Und deine Freiheit hei   t , du kriegst bei mir einen Posten.Und da du meine Waren kaufen mu   t , stell ich dich bei mir an.Dadurch verursacht deine Freiheit keine Kosten.Und es bleibt dabei , da   meine Freiheit immer wieder meine Freiheit ist.Deine Freiheit bleibt meiner einverleibt.Und wenn ich meine Freiheit nicht hab , hast du deine Freiheit nicht.Und meine Freiheit wird dadurch zu deiner Pflicht.Und darum sag ich dir : Verteidig ' meine Freiheit mit der Waffe in der Handund mit der Waffe in den H   nden deiner Kinder ! Damit von deinen Kindern keines bei der Arbeit je vergi   t , was Freiheit ist.Meine Freiheit sei dir immer oberstes Gebot.Meiner Freiheit bleibt treu bis in den Tod.Wenn dir das vielleicht nicht logisch vorkommt , denk an eines blo   : Ohne meine Freiheit bist du arbeitslos.Ja , Freiheit ist was anderes als Z   gellosigkeit.Freiheit hei   t auch Flei   , M   nnlichkeit und Schwei   .Ich werd dir sagen , was ich heutzutag als freiheitlich empfind : Die Dinge so zu lassen wie sie sind.Drum ist in jedem Falle meine Freiheit wichtiger als deine Freiheit je.Meine Freiheit : Yes !
Deine Freiheit : Nee ! Meine Freiheit ist schon ein paar hundert Jahre alt.Deine Freiheit kommt vielleicht schon bald.Aber vorl   ufig ist nichts aus deiner Freiheitsambition,du hast noch keine Macht und keine Organisation.Ich w   r ja dumm , wenn ich auf meine Freiheit dir zulieb verzicht,drum behalt ich meine Freiheit .
Du kriegst deine Freiheit nicht .
Noch nicht !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damnit!
I wish there were an English version of this song:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeGtUSA73\_g [youtube.com]It says just what you said, but in a really great way.Anyone care to translate it?Freiheit hat mit Deutschland selbstverständlich was zu tun,sofern man wirtschaftlich dazu was beiträgt.Manche müssen unfrei bleiben.
Keiner ist immun,wenn er den Zug versäumt, der ihn dann freiträgt.Wenn er den Zug nicht sieht und alles komplizieren muß,tja, dann wird es Regeln geben, die er respektieren muß.Dann wird ihm sein Arbeitgeber vielleicht sagen:Meine Freiheit muß noch lang nicht deine Freiheit sein.Meine Freiheit: Ja!
Deine Freiheit: Nein!Meine Freiheit wird von der Verfassung garantiert,deine hat bis jetzt nicht interessiert.Meine Freiheit heißt, daß ich Geschäfte machen kann.Und deine Freiheit heißt, du kriegst bei mir einen Posten.Und da du meine Waren kaufen mußt, stell ich dich bei mir an.Dadurch verursacht deine Freiheit keine Kosten.Und es bleibt dabei, daß meine Freiheit immer wieder meine Freiheit ist.Deine Freiheit bleibt meiner einverleibt.Und wenn ich meine Freiheit nicht hab, hast du deine Freiheit nicht.Und meine Freiheit wird dadurch zu deiner Pflicht.Und darum sag ich dir: Verteidig' meine Freiheit mit der Waffe in der Handund mit der Waffe in den Händen deiner Kinder!Damit von deinen Kindern keines bei der Arbeit je vergißt, was Freiheit ist.Meine Freiheit sei dir immer oberstes Gebot.Meiner Freiheit bleibt treu bis in den Tod.Wenn dir das vielleicht nicht logisch vorkommt, denk an eines bloß:Ohne meine Freiheit bist du arbeitslos.Ja, Freiheit ist was anderes als Zügellosigkeit.Freiheit heißt auch Fleiß, Männlichkeit und Schweiß.Ich werd dir sagen, was ich heutzutag als freiheitlich empfind:Die Dinge so zu lassen wie sie sind.Drum ist in jedem Falle meine Freiheit wichtiger als deine Freiheit je.Meine Freiheit: Yes!
Deine Freiheit: Nee!Meine Freiheit ist schon ein paar hundert Jahre alt.Deine Freiheit kommt vielleicht schon bald.Aber vorläufig ist nichts aus deiner Freiheitsambition,du hast noch keine Macht und keine Organisation.Ich wär ja dumm, wenn ich auf meine Freiheit dir zulieb verzicht,drum behalt ich meine Freiheit.
Du kriegst deine Freiheit nicht.
Noch nicht! 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708602</id>
	<title>Using Facebook is stupid.</title>
	<author>Organic Brain Damage</author>
	<datestamp>1263065460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tried Facebook, but nobody would friend me so I think it's stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried Facebook , but nobody would friend me so I think it 's stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried Facebook, but nobody would friend me so I think it's stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709210</id>
	<title>Re:Don't see what the big deal is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263070500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The things I post on facebook are things I would show to any stranger. I think of facebook as a PR tool, when I post to it, I imagine showing everybody in the world. I would never use it to share anything "secret". If there were pictures I only wanted certain friends to see, I wouldn't use facebook to share them. How hard can this be?</p></div></blockquote><p>That's fine, as long as you're the only one in the pictures. If you're not, then either:</p><p>a) You diligently consult all the other people about their privacy preferences before posting, or<br>b) Those other people are suddenly subject to *your* notion of privacy, which may well be a whole lot looser than theirs.</p><p>So to answer your rhetorical question: actually, quite hard. In extreme cases, i.e. extreme mismatches between notions of privacy, the more-private are pretty much forced to segregate themselves from the less-private, because they just flat can't trust them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The things I post on facebook are things I would show to any stranger .
I think of facebook as a PR tool , when I post to it , I imagine showing everybody in the world .
I would never use it to share anything " secret " .
If there were pictures I only wanted certain friends to see , I would n't use facebook to share them .
How hard can this be ? That 's fine , as long as you 're the only one in the pictures .
If you 're not , then either : a ) You diligently consult all the other people about their privacy preferences before posting , orb ) Those other people are suddenly subject to * your * notion of privacy , which may well be a whole lot looser than theirs.So to answer your rhetorical question : actually , quite hard .
In extreme cases , i.e .
extreme mismatches between notions of privacy , the more-private are pretty much forced to segregate themselves from the less-private , because they just flat ca n't trust them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The things I post on facebook are things I would show to any stranger.
I think of facebook as a PR tool, when I post to it, I imagine showing everybody in the world.
I would never use it to share anything "secret".
If there were pictures I only wanted certain friends to see, I wouldn't use facebook to share them.
How hard can this be?That's fine, as long as you're the only one in the pictures.
If you're not, then either:a) You diligently consult all the other people about their privacy preferences before posting, orb) Those other people are suddenly subject to *your* notion of privacy, which may well be a whole lot looser than theirs.So to answer your rhetorical question: actually, quite hard.
In extreme cases, i.e.
extreme mismatches between notions of privacy, the more-private are pretty much forced to segregate themselves from the less-private, because they just flat can't trust them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710214</id>
	<title>Amazing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263037260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amazing how everyone sidesteps the real issue. You'll always find a way to screw things up for other people even if invading is currently out of fashion. And you wonder why you're so hated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazing how everyone sidesteps the real issue .
You 'll always find a way to screw things up for other people even if invading is currently out of fashion .
And you wonder why you 're so hated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazing how everyone sidesteps the real issue.
You'll always find a way to screw things up for other people even if invading is currently out of fashion.
And you wonder why you're so hated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709382</id>
	<title>Aggregation leads to dysfunctional freakshow</title>
	<author>HalAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1263028800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Consequences aren't even the problem, it's the consequences of the <i>assumptions people make</i> that are the problem.  People like to aggregate and derive "what happened" from that, and suddenly you're defending against a ton of actually baseless accusations that those people don't feel are baseless because they feel they have something substantial to back it up.  Then it reaches the point where it doesn't even matter what really happened, it's what the majority believes happened.<br> <br>Celebrities don't like their lives being invaded and on display on TV.  Some may make stupid mistakes, some may just look stupid, but people love a scandal and TV stations love drawing people in with something inexpensive, and it's easy to draw a few lines and come up with a nasty picture.  Suddenly everyone could be vulnerable to that type of finger pointing, public shaming, and other rubbish.  How much do we need to be traumatized, do we really want to end up as a society that is nothing but a dysfunctional freakshow?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Consequences are n't even the problem , it 's the consequences of the assumptions people make that are the problem .
People like to aggregate and derive " what happened " from that , and suddenly you 're defending against a ton of actually baseless accusations that those people do n't feel are baseless because they feel they have something substantial to back it up .
Then it reaches the point where it does n't even matter what really happened , it 's what the majority believes happened .
Celebrities do n't like their lives being invaded and on display on TV .
Some may make stupid mistakes , some may just look stupid , but people love a scandal and TV stations love drawing people in with something inexpensive , and it 's easy to draw a few lines and come up with a nasty picture .
Suddenly everyone could be vulnerable to that type of finger pointing , public shaming , and other rubbish .
How much do we need to be traumatized , do we really want to end up as a society that is nothing but a dysfunctional freakshow ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consequences aren't even the problem, it's the consequences of the assumptions people make that are the problem.
People like to aggregate and derive "what happened" from that, and suddenly you're defending against a ton of actually baseless accusations that those people don't feel are baseless because they feel they have something substantial to back it up.
Then it reaches the point where it doesn't even matter what really happened, it's what the majority believes happened.
Celebrities don't like their lives being invaded and on display on TV.
Some may make stupid mistakes, some may just look stupid, but people love a scandal and TV stations love drawing people in with something inexpensive, and it's easy to draw a few lines and come up with a nasty picture.
Suddenly everyone could be vulnerable to that type of finger pointing, public shaming, and other rubbish.
How much do we need to be traumatized, do we really want to end up as a society that is nothing but a dysfunctional freakshow?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708818</id>
	<title>It's people's attitudes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263067260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I do find interesting is that although I myself have never been a MySpace/Facebook/etc user, I can almost always expect that my likeness will be used there anyway. If a friend takes a photo of me, I can almost be guaranteed that it'll end up on Facebook without my consent, yet at the same time I can't be the luser who stuffs their hand in the camera's lens, or worse, becomes the total social recluse that never comes out of his bedroom. The reason for that is simple: people expect that I am like them, and think it completely acceptable to go posting photos of myself all over the Interwebs.</p><p>The erosion of privacy hasn't got anything to do with big government, corporations, or the like - sure, they come in eventually as a result, but ultimately it's <em>people</em>, and more specifically people's attitudes, that are causing the change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do find interesting is that although I myself have never been a MySpace/Facebook/etc user , I can almost always expect that my likeness will be used there anyway .
If a friend takes a photo of me , I can almost be guaranteed that it 'll end up on Facebook without my consent , yet at the same time I ca n't be the luser who stuffs their hand in the camera 's lens , or worse , becomes the total social recluse that never comes out of his bedroom .
The reason for that is simple : people expect that I am like them , and think it completely acceptable to go posting photos of myself all over the Interwebs.The erosion of privacy has n't got anything to do with big government , corporations , or the like - sure , they come in eventually as a result , but ultimately it 's people , and more specifically people 's attitudes , that are causing the change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I do find interesting is that although I myself have never been a MySpace/Facebook/etc user, I can almost always expect that my likeness will be used there anyway.
If a friend takes a photo of me, I can almost be guaranteed that it'll end up on Facebook without my consent, yet at the same time I can't be the luser who stuffs their hand in the camera's lens, or worse, becomes the total social recluse that never comes out of his bedroom.
The reason for that is simple: people expect that I am like them, and think it completely acceptable to go posting photos of myself all over the Interwebs.The erosion of privacy hasn't got anything to do with big government, corporations, or the like - sure, they come in eventually as a result, but ultimately it's people, and more specifically people's attitudes, that are causing the change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709096</id>
	<title>Re:Good Morning.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263069480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>All predicted (or observe?) in Ben Elton's "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind\_Faith\_(novel)" title="wikipedia.org">Blind Faith</a> [wikipedia.org]", of course. "Only perverts do things in private."</htmltext>
<tokenext>All predicted ( or observe ?
) in Ben Elton 's " Blind Faith [ wikipedia.org ] " , of course .
" Only perverts do things in private .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All predicted (or observe?
) in Ben Elton's "Blind Faith [wikipedia.org]", of course.
"Only perverts do things in private.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708526</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709426</id>
	<title>Re:Welcome</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1263029160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(the only claim to Cultural prowness that modern Britain has is BBC)</p></div><p>Really?  So you don't rate the Welsh National Opera, the Royal Philharmonic Opera, or the National Gallery as culture, but you do rate the BBC?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( the only claim to Cultural prowness that modern Britain has is BBC ) Really ?
So you do n't rate the Welsh National Opera , the Royal Philharmonic Opera , or the National Gallery as culture , but you do rate the BBC ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(the only claim to Cultural prowness that modern Britain has is BBC)Really?
So you don't rate the Welsh National Opera, the Royal Philharmonic Opera, or the National Gallery as culture, but you do rate the BBC?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30711972</id>
	<title>Re:A twisted thought...</title>
	<author>evanbd</author>
	<datestamp>1263051660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Would it be possible to use DMCA to force people pull down pics with your face on them?</p></div><p>Sure, assuming you own the copyright to the photos.  Normally the photographer owns the copyright, so normally you can't (assuming that, since you were in the photo, you weren't the photographer).</p><p>Of course, the stuff around model releases and such gets more complicated, but that has little to do with copyright and therefore the DMCA.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would it be possible to use DMCA to force people pull down pics with your face on them ? Sure , assuming you own the copyright to the photos .
Normally the photographer owns the copyright , so normally you ca n't ( assuming that , since you were in the photo , you were n't the photographer ) .Of course , the stuff around model releases and such gets more complicated , but that has little to do with copyright and therefore the DMCA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would it be possible to use DMCA to force people pull down pics with your face on them?Sure, assuming you own the copyright to the photos.
Normally the photographer owns the copyright, so normally you can't (assuming that, since you were in the photo, you weren't the photographer).Of course, the stuff around model releases and such gets more complicated, but that has little to do with copyright and therefore the DMCA.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709786</id>
	<title>Prude 2.0</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263032700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Dumb, fashion-following, uncritical people fuck it all up for everybody else: Welcome to Democracy in a nation where education is all geared up to turn kids into make tomorrows working drones instead of empowering them as self-thinking and self-opinied individuals.</i></p><p>You end up sounding just like the people that were aghast at Rock &amp; Roll, and Free Love in the 60's.  The stuff the kids are "fucking up" is, much like the heavily religious dogma of old,  something you care about very much but is being discarded by new generations and it's upsetting you greatly.  Well guess what, the kids are are on your lawn and they are not moving.</p><p>Welcome to a generational shift.  No-one asked you if you liked it.</p><p>Frankly I think it's pretty funny you are talking about converting people into drones when the subject at hand is people posting personal details of themselves.  It's pretty much the opposite of conforming and encouraging people to post the opinions they have for the world to see.  The destruction of the concept of privacy as we know it comes not from above, but from a million million voices below speaking out as individuals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dumb , fashion-following , uncritical people fuck it all up for everybody else : Welcome to Democracy in a nation where education is all geared up to turn kids into make tomorrows working drones instead of empowering them as self-thinking and self-opinied individuals.You end up sounding just like the people that were aghast at Rock &amp; Roll , and Free Love in the 60 's .
The stuff the kids are " fucking up " is , much like the heavily religious dogma of old , something you care about very much but is being discarded by new generations and it 's upsetting you greatly .
Well guess what , the kids are are on your lawn and they are not moving.Welcome to a generational shift .
No-one asked you if you liked it.Frankly I think it 's pretty funny you are talking about converting people into drones when the subject at hand is people posting personal details of themselves .
It 's pretty much the opposite of conforming and encouraging people to post the opinions they have for the world to see .
The destruction of the concept of privacy as we know it comes not from above , but from a million million voices below speaking out as individuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dumb, fashion-following, uncritical people fuck it all up for everybody else: Welcome to Democracy in a nation where education is all geared up to turn kids into make tomorrows working drones instead of empowering them as self-thinking and self-opinied individuals.You end up sounding just like the people that were aghast at Rock &amp; Roll, and Free Love in the 60's.
The stuff the kids are "fucking up" is, much like the heavily religious dogma of old,  something you care about very much but is being discarded by new generations and it's upsetting you greatly.
Well guess what, the kids are are on your lawn and they are not moving.Welcome to a generational shift.
No-one asked you if you liked it.Frankly I think it's pretty funny you are talking about converting people into drones when the subject at hand is people posting personal details of themselves.
It's pretty much the opposite of conforming and encouraging people to post the opinions they have for the world to see.
The destruction of the concept of privacy as we know it comes not from above, but from a million million voices below speaking out as individuals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708384</id>
	<title>Ha! You leave me out of this.</title>
	<author>ScrewMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1263063540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>. Given that the significant bulk of social networkers are American</p></div><p>That's probably true, but I, for one, do not post the intimate details of <i>my</i> life on the Internet. Mainly that's because, as an adult, I have an awareness of consequence (having suffered through enough such consequences over the years to have gained an appreciation of the power of my own stupidity.) Nevertheless, that Facebook/MySpace phenomenon is largely an expression of childlike behavior on the part of many of those users. Eventually, they'll grow up and wonder "what the Hell was I <i>thinking</i>?!". Or maybe they won't: some people are just stupid after all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>.
Given that the significant bulk of social networkers are AmericanThat 's probably true , but I , for one , do not post the intimate details of my life on the Internet .
Mainly that 's because , as an adult , I have an awareness of consequence ( having suffered through enough such consequences over the years to have gained an appreciation of the power of my own stupidity .
) Nevertheless , that Facebook/MySpace phenomenon is largely an expression of childlike behavior on the part of many of those users .
Eventually , they 'll grow up and wonder " what the Hell was I thinking ? ! " .
Or maybe they wo n't : some people are just stupid after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
Given that the significant bulk of social networkers are AmericanThat's probably true, but I, for one, do not post the intimate details of my life on the Internet.
Mainly that's because, as an adult, I have an awareness of consequence (having suffered through enough such consequences over the years to have gained an appreciation of the power of my own stupidity.
) Nevertheless, that Facebook/MySpace phenomenon is largely an expression of childlike behavior on the part of many of those users.
Eventually, they'll grow up and wonder "what the Hell was I thinking?!".
Or maybe they won't: some people are just stupid after all.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709002</id>
	<title>A simple cure - if you can't beat 'em...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263068820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Incorporate yourself, your belongings, etc. as an LLC.</p><p>Yes, it would suck that you have to become a one-man(woman) corporation just to get some privacy, but on the plus side, you can enjoy the same rights as the mega-corps, pay lower taxes (what is it, 15\% as opposed to the 28\% that higher-end individual earners make?), and enjoy the same skewed laws, but this time in your favor.</p><p>On the down side, if a larger corp decides to buy your corp, do you become their slave? (I know, I know... but I can't get the thought out of my head for some reason).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Incorporate yourself , your belongings , etc .
as an LLC.Yes , it would suck that you have to become a one-man ( woman ) corporation just to get some privacy , but on the plus side , you can enjoy the same rights as the mega-corps , pay lower taxes ( what is it , 15 \ % as opposed to the 28 \ % that higher-end individual earners make ?
) , and enjoy the same skewed laws , but this time in your favor.On the down side , if a larger corp decides to buy your corp , do you become their slave ?
( I know , I know... but I ca n't get the thought out of my head for some reason ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Incorporate yourself, your belongings, etc.
as an LLC.Yes, it would suck that you have to become a one-man(woman) corporation just to get some privacy, but on the plus side, you can enjoy the same rights as the mega-corps, pay lower taxes (what is it, 15\% as opposed to the 28\% that higher-end individual earners make?
), and enjoy the same skewed laws, but this time in your favor.On the down side, if a larger corp decides to buy your corp, do you become their slave?
(I know, I know... but I can't get the thought out of my head for some reason).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709516</id>
	<title>Re:Apples and ornages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263030000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I catch a Peeping Tom at my window (for example) it doesn't matter one bit what I do on Facebook, because <b>in my home I have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'.  Period.</b>  If the defense were to bring up my Facebook activities, I would hope the prosecutor would realize that such a defense is no different than smearing a rape victim because she was wearing skimpy clothes or a robbery victim because they left their door unlocked.</p></div><p>Tell that to the guy who was charged with the heinous crime of making coffee in the nude one morning, in his own kitchen, and was seen through a window by a woman and her child who were trespassing on his property at the time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I catch a Peeping Tom at my window ( for example ) it does n't matter one bit what I do on Facebook , because in my home I have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' .
Period. If the defense were to bring up my Facebook activities , I would hope the prosecutor would realize that such a defense is no different than smearing a rape victim because she was wearing skimpy clothes or a robbery victim because they left their door unlocked.Tell that to the guy who was charged with the heinous crime of making coffee in the nude one morning , in his own kitchen , and was seen through a window by a woman and her child who were trespassing on his property at the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I catch a Peeping Tom at my window (for example) it doesn't matter one bit what I do on Facebook, because in my home I have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'.
Period.  If the defense were to bring up my Facebook activities, I would hope the prosecutor would realize that such a defense is no different than smearing a rape victim because she was wearing skimpy clothes or a robbery victim because they left their door unlocked.Tell that to the guy who was charged with the heinous crime of making coffee in the nude one morning, in his own kitchen, and was seen through a window by a woman and her child who were trespassing on his property at the time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708656</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710466</id>
	<title>death of privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263039660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>20th century was the death of privacy and anyone sticking up for it obviously has something to hide<br>or so says google..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>20th century was the death of privacy and anyone sticking up for it obviously has something to hideor so says google. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20th century was the death of privacy and anyone sticking up for it obviously has something to hideor so says google..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709800</id>
	<title>Re:Logic fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263032820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But the only way to do that is to have a central authority to proxy that exchange.</p></div><p>No, I get on quite fine by talking (you know, by moving my lips) to my friends. If you don't think it's worth retelling a story a few times, then you just don't deserve to have friends.you should maybe find some real friends.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the only way to do that is to have a central authority to proxy that exchange.No , I get on quite fine by talking ( you know , by moving my lips ) to my friends .
If you do n't think it 's worth retelling a story a few times , then you just do n't deserve to have friends.you should maybe find some real friends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the only way to do that is to have a central authority to proxy that exchange.No, I get on quite fine by talking (you know, by moving my lips) to my friends.
If you don't think it's worth retelling a story a few times, then you just don't deserve to have friends.you should maybe find some real friends.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708560</id>
	<title>Re:Good Morning.</title>
	<author>santiagodraco</author>
	<datestamp>1263065100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Translation:</p><p>"I have no friends to link on Facebook and neither should you"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Translation : " I have no friends to link on Facebook and neither should you "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Translation:"I have no friends to link on Facebook and neither should you"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709390</id>
	<title>what is the term for this kind of mental diarrhea?</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1263028860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. country X does something bad<br>2. the USA is to blame for what country X does because (insert speculative line of reasoning)</p><p>the story summary is a classic example of this kind of bullshit</p><p>you don't have to like the usa. there is in fact, a smorgasbord of reasons to dislike the USA and its policies for you to choose from</p><p>however, if you have to blame initiatives done by other country's governments on the USA, you've left the land of logical coherence and entered the land of tribal chip on your shoulder</p><p>have a valid reason to dislike the USA, or be a crackpot. your choice</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1. country X does something bad2 .
the USA is to blame for what country X does because ( insert speculative line of reasoning ) the story summary is a classic example of this kind of bullshityou do n't have to like the usa .
there is in fact , a smorgasbord of reasons to dislike the USA and its policies for you to choose fromhowever , if you have to blame initiatives done by other country 's governments on the USA , you 've left the land of logical coherence and entered the land of tribal chip on your shoulderhave a valid reason to dislike the USA , or be a crackpot .
your choice</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1. country X does something bad2.
the USA is to blame for what country X does because (insert speculative line of reasoning)the story summary is a classic example of this kind of bullshityou don't have to like the usa.
there is in fact, a smorgasbord of reasons to dislike the USA and its policies for you to choose fromhowever, if you have to blame initiatives done by other country's governments on the USA, you've left the land of logical coherence and entered the land of tribal chip on your shoulderhave a valid reason to dislike the USA, or be a crackpot.
your choice</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708756</id>
	<title>Re:There's different things</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263066780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget 4- stuff other people put online about YOU. (and that's an almost In Soviet Russia joke...)</p><p>You're trapped. You can be as careful and cautious all you want about your online privacy, but you can't stop people you know from posting your data online, even if it's just your email address. Just recently I got a facebook invite by email from a friend, and in it were photos of other people I knew but that didn't know him, even though I never participated in any social networking sites. The only thing on the web that can possibly relate me to those people is the plainly visible Cc: field sent by some of them because they dont know any better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget 4- stuff other people put online about YOU .
( and that 's an almost In Soviet Russia joke... ) You 're trapped .
You can be as careful and cautious all you want about your online privacy , but you ca n't stop people you know from posting your data online , even if it 's just your email address .
Just recently I got a facebook invite by email from a friend , and in it were photos of other people I knew but that did n't know him , even though I never participated in any social networking sites .
The only thing on the web that can possibly relate me to those people is the plainly visible Cc : field sent by some of them because they dont know any better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget 4- stuff other people put online about YOU.
(and that's an almost In Soviet Russia joke...)You're trapped.
You can be as careful and cautious all you want about your online privacy, but you can't stop people you know from posting your data online, even if it's just your email address.
Just recently I got a facebook invite by email from a friend, and in it were photos of other people I knew but that didn't know him, even though I never participated in any social networking sites.
The only thing on the web that can possibly relate me to those people is the plainly visible Cc: field sent by some of them because they dont know any better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709330</id>
	<title>Fuck the Internet? Posting pics is nothing new</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1263028320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Facebook is actually one of the better places, in that it allows people to set privacy controls.</p><p>However people were posting pictures on the web - that could be viewed by absolutely anyone - long before Facebook came around.</p><p><i>And a special "fuck you" to attention-starved fucks who use any of the above.</i></p><p>Aww, diddums, says the guy who has to post on Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Facebook is actually one of the better places , in that it allows people to set privacy controls.However people were posting pictures on the web - that could be viewed by absolutely anyone - long before Facebook came around.And a special " fuck you " to attention-starved fucks who use any of the above.Aww , diddums , says the guy who has to post on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Facebook is actually one of the better places, in that it allows people to set privacy controls.However people were posting pictures on the web - that could be viewed by absolutely anyone - long before Facebook came around.And a special "fuck you" to attention-starved fucks who use any of the above.Aww, diddums, says the guy who has to post on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710768</id>
	<title>Privacy is a myth</title>
	<author>nortonmansfield</author>
	<datestamp>1263042180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In small communities, there is no privacy. Privacy emerged with the advent of large cities, at the price of Marxian alienation.  As we move toward the hive mind, mankind is rediscovering a need to connect that only seems frightening because it follows a quarter century of one way mass media. Our present society is technically advanced, but culturally naive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In small communities , there is no privacy .
Privacy emerged with the advent of large cities , at the price of Marxian alienation .
As we move toward the hive mind , mankind is rediscovering a need to connect that only seems frightening because it follows a quarter century of one way mass media .
Our present society is technically advanced , but culturally naive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In small communities, there is no privacy.
Privacy emerged with the advent of large cities, at the price of Marxian alienation.
As we move toward the hive mind, mankind is rediscovering a need to connect that only seems frightening because it follows a quarter century of one way mass media.
Our present society is technically advanced, but culturally naive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709168</id>
	<title>Re:I notice that Dr. O'Hara is not a lawyer.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263070080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you would like to read more about him it's easy to find the <a href="http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/about/kieron\_o\_hara.php" title="soton.ac.uk" rel="nofollow">details of his life online</a> [soton.ac.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you would like to read more about him it 's easy to find the details of his life online [ soton.ac.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you would like to read more about him it's easy to find the details of his life online [soton.ac.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708576</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709312</id>
	<title>Re:Logic fail</title>
	<author>AnyoneEB</author>
	<datestamp>1263028200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The difference here is that we're giving this information to people by choice -- people we know. Our friends, family, and acquaintances. But the only way to do that is to have a central authority to proxy that exchange. The problem is that this central authority abuses its power and -- even worse -- that the government wants its hands in everything as well. It should require a warrant because although a billion billion people might have access to the data, that doesn't mean you gave permission to the next guy.</p></div><p>Agreed, but, then again, it seems like a much better solution is to get rid of the central authority. It is not <em>really</em> needed. It is just easier.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference here is that we 're giving this information to people by choice -- people we know .
Our friends , family , and acquaintances .
But the only way to do that is to have a central authority to proxy that exchange .
The problem is that this central authority abuses its power and -- even worse -- that the government wants its hands in everything as well .
It should require a warrant because although a billion billion people might have access to the data , that does n't mean you gave permission to the next guy.Agreed , but , then again , it seems like a much better solution is to get rid of the central authority .
It is not really needed .
It is just easier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference here is that we're giving this information to people by choice -- people we know.
Our friends, family, and acquaintances.
But the only way to do that is to have a central authority to proxy that exchange.
The problem is that this central authority abuses its power and -- even worse -- that the government wants its hands in everything as well.
It should require a warrant because although a billion billion people might have access to the data, that doesn't mean you gave permission to the next guy.Agreed, but, then again, it seems like a much better solution is to get rid of the central authority.
It is not really needed.
It is just easier.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30712016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30712558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30715326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30717328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30711930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30712602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709926
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30716118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30711266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708498
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30724002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30744088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30714272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709440
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30715318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30712452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710104
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30744016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30711422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30711972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30723576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708336
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_09_1630227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1630227.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1630227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30712602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1630227.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1630227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1630227.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1630227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1630227.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1630227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1630227.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30712452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30711266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30716118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30723576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1630227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30717328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30724002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30715318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30711930
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30712558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30711422
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1630227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1630227.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709516
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709440
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30714272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1630227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1630227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1630227.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1630227.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708560
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709080
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30744088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30744016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1630227.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30711972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1630227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710008
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1630227.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709800
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30712016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708852
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1630227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30709210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30710104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_09_1630227.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30708466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_09_1630227.30715326
</commentlist>
</conversation>
