<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_19_0337249</id>
	<title>The Fourth Amendment and the Cloud</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1263906600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>CNET has up a blog post examining the question: <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-19413\_3-10436425-240.html">does the Fourth Amendment apply to data stored in the Cloud</a>? The US constitutional amendment forbidding unreasonable searches and seizures is well settled in regard to the physical world, but its application to electronic communications and computing lags behind. The post's argument outlines a <a href="http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/sites/default/files/Couillard\_MLR.pdf">law review article</a> (PDF) from a University of Minnesota law student, David A. Couillard. <i>"Hypothetically, if a briefcase is locked with a combination lock, the government could attempt to guess the combination until the briefcase unlocked; but because the briefcase is opaque, there is still a reasonable expectation of privacy in the unlocked container. In the context of virtual containers in the cloud...encryption is not simply a virtual lock and key; it is virtual opacity. ... [T]he service provider has a copy of the keys to a user's cloud 'storage unit,' much like a landlord or storage locker owner has keys to a tenant's space, a bank has the keys to a safe deposit box, and a postal carrier has the keys to a mailbox. Yet that does not give law enforcement the authority to use those third parties as a means to enter a private space. The same rationale should apply to the cloud."</i> We might wish that the courts interpreted Fourth Amendment rights in this way, but <a href="http://blog.jamesurquhart.com/2008/09/cloud-computing-and-constitution.html">so far</a> <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-19413\_3-10220786-240.html">they have not</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>CNET has up a blog post examining the question : does the Fourth Amendment apply to data stored in the Cloud ?
The US constitutional amendment forbidding unreasonable searches and seizures is well settled in regard to the physical world , but its application to electronic communications and computing lags behind .
The post 's argument outlines a law review article ( PDF ) from a University of Minnesota law student , David A. Couillard. " Hypothetically , if a briefcase is locked with a combination lock , the government could attempt to guess the combination until the briefcase unlocked ; but because the briefcase is opaque , there is still a reasonable expectation of privacy in the unlocked container .
In the context of virtual containers in the cloud...encryption is not simply a virtual lock and key ; it is virtual opacity .
... [ T ] he service provider has a copy of the keys to a user 's cloud 'storage unit, ' much like a landlord or storage locker owner has keys to a tenant 's space , a bank has the keys to a safe deposit box , and a postal carrier has the keys to a mailbox .
Yet that does not give law enforcement the authority to use those third parties as a means to enter a private space .
The same rationale should apply to the cloud .
" We might wish that the courts interpreted Fourth Amendment rights in this way , but so far they have not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CNET has up a blog post examining the question: does the Fourth Amendment apply to data stored in the Cloud?
The US constitutional amendment forbidding unreasonable searches and seizures is well settled in regard to the physical world, but its application to electronic communications and computing lags behind.
The post's argument outlines a law review article (PDF) from a University of Minnesota law student, David A. Couillard. "Hypothetically, if a briefcase is locked with a combination lock, the government could attempt to guess the combination until the briefcase unlocked; but because the briefcase is opaque, there is still a reasonable expectation of privacy in the unlocked container.
In the context of virtual containers in the cloud...encryption is not simply a virtual lock and key; it is virtual opacity.
... [T]he service provider has a copy of the keys to a user's cloud 'storage unit,' much like a landlord or storage locker owner has keys to a tenant's space, a bank has the keys to a safe deposit box, and a postal carrier has the keys to a mailbox.
Yet that does not give law enforcement the authority to use those third parties as a means to enter a private space.
The same rationale should apply to the cloud.
" We might wish that the courts interpreted Fourth Amendment rights in this way, but so far they have not.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819418</id>
	<title>don't give anyone else the key</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1263917760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Solution: just don't give anyone else the key to your encrypted data. And certainly not the third-parties.</p><p>The problem is, though, that web-browsers don't (yet) have good support for encryption/decryption of data.<br>The only encryption supported well is the TLS connection to the webserver, but that one doesn't count since it merely allows you to talk to the webserver (i.e., the third-party).</p><p>Another problem with client-side-encryption is that the third-parties cannot manipulate or index your data, but that could also be done on the client, i suppose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Solution : just do n't give anyone else the key to your encrypted data .
And certainly not the third-parties.The problem is , though , that web-browsers do n't ( yet ) have good support for encryption/decryption of data.The only encryption supported well is the TLS connection to the webserver , but that one does n't count since it merely allows you to talk to the webserver ( i.e. , the third-party ) .Another problem with client-side-encryption is that the third-parties can not manipulate or index your data , but that could also be done on the client , i suppose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solution: just don't give anyone else the key to your encrypted data.
And certainly not the third-parties.The problem is, though, that web-browsers don't (yet) have good support for encryption/decryption of data.The only encryption supported well is the TLS connection to the webserver, but that one doesn't count since it merely allows you to talk to the webserver (i.e., the third-party).Another problem with client-side-encryption is that the third-parties cannot manipulate or index your data, but that could also be done on the client, i suppose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820866</id>
	<title>The 1st rule of email should also apply to cloud</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1263923940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quite simply, don't store any data in "the cloud" that you would object to seeing printed on the front page of a newspaper the next morning. If you want to keep something confidential, store it on a server controlled by you, and use adequate encryption when transmitting it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite simply , do n't store any data in " the cloud " that you would object to seeing printed on the front page of a newspaper the next morning .
If you want to keep something confidential , store it on a server controlled by you , and use adequate encryption when transmitting it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite simply, don't store any data in "the cloud" that you would object to seeing printed on the front page of a newspaper the next morning.
If you want to keep something confidential, store it on a server controlled by you, and use adequate encryption when transmitting it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819294</id>
	<title>Re:US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1263917100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Shouldn't the same privacy logic apply even more to your laptops and personal electronic devices when you're entering U.S. borders?

Having these people search your hard drive is an invasion of privacy.</p></div><p>Not really - at least not for US citizens, IMHO.  Non-citizens are requesting to enter the country, a prerequisite to such permission is to search items being brought in.  You should be able to refuse a search and leave on the next flight; entrance is a not a right.  It's the same traveling to any country; you either meet their entrance requirements or don't enter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't the same privacy logic apply even more to your laptops and personal electronic devices when you 're entering U.S. borders ? Having these people search your hard drive is an invasion of privacy.Not really - at least not for US citizens , IMHO .
Non-citizens are requesting to enter the country , a prerequisite to such permission is to search items being brought in .
You should be able to refuse a search and leave on the next flight ; entrance is a not a right .
It 's the same traveling to any country ; you either meet their entrance requirements or do n't enter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't the same privacy logic apply even more to your laptops and personal electronic devices when you're entering U.S. borders?

Having these people search your hard drive is an invasion of privacy.Not really - at least not for US citizens, IMHO.
Non-citizens are requesting to enter the country, a prerequisite to such permission is to search items being brought in.
You should be able to refuse a search and leave on the next flight; entrance is a not a right.
It's the same traveling to any country; you either meet their entrance requirements or don't enter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818302</id>
	<title>As they say in GNAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263910380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're all a bunch of faggots.<br>Cloud computing sucks.<br>Fuck amazon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're all a bunch of faggots.Cloud computing sucks.Fuck amazon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're all a bunch of faggots.Cloud computing sucks.Fuck amazon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818384</id>
	<title>Re:US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263911280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Shouldn't the same privacy logic apply even more to your laptops and personal electronic devices when you're entering U.S. borders?

Having these people search your hard drive is an invasion of privacy.</p></div><p>The logic has <strong>never</strong> applied when entering U.S. borders (or any other country for that matter). Searches that would be disallowed within the country have been ruled by the Supreme Court as allowed since the founding of the country. The people who <strong>wrote</strong> the Fourth Amendment did not question such border searches, which makes it hard to argue today that the Fourth Amendment was intended to apply.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't the same privacy logic apply even more to your laptops and personal electronic devices when you 're entering U.S. borders ? Having these people search your hard drive is an invasion of privacy.The logic has never applied when entering U.S. borders ( or any other country for that matter ) .
Searches that would be disallowed within the country have been ruled by the Supreme Court as allowed since the founding of the country .
The people who wrote the Fourth Amendment did not question such border searches , which makes it hard to argue today that the Fourth Amendment was intended to apply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't the same privacy logic apply even more to your laptops and personal electronic devices when you're entering U.S. borders?

Having these people search your hard drive is an invasion of privacy.The logic has never applied when entering U.S. borders (or any other country for that matter).
Searches that would be disallowed within the country have been ruled by the Supreme Court as allowed since the founding of the country.
The people who wrote the Fourth Amendment did not question such border searches, which makes it hard to argue today that the Fourth Amendment was intended to apply.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818674</id>
	<title>Only in america</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263913680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>US freedoms, protections and liberties only apply within US borders. If you put your data in "the cloud" is there any guarantee that your data will stay with US borders, or is it free to float (as clouds do) to any other geographic location.
<p>
Specifically, would it be wise to assume that all, or any, backups will only be taken in america, or that the data won't get routed to or through another country.?</p><p>
It's a big world out there and the USA is only a small part of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>US freedoms , protections and liberties only apply within US borders .
If you put your data in " the cloud " is there any guarantee that your data will stay with US borders , or is it free to float ( as clouds do ) to any other geographic location .
Specifically , would it be wise to assume that all , or any , backups will only be taken in america , or that the data wo n't get routed to or through another country. ?
It 's a big world out there and the USA is only a small part of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US freedoms, protections and liberties only apply within US borders.
If you put your data in "the cloud" is there any guarantee that your data will stay with US borders, or is it free to float (as clouds do) to any other geographic location.
Specifically, would it be wise to assume that all, or any, backups will only be taken in america, or that the data won't get routed to or through another country.?
It's a big world out there and the USA is only a small part of it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30821970</id>
	<title>Re:It's very simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263928560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would worry about the third party doing something wrong with the data. For example, if you have encrypted your data and that data winds up being stored in a data center in <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/01/18/2234226" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">Iceland</a> [slashdot.org], then have you made an export? Has the cloud company made an export? Does US law apply to the Iceland servers? If the Iceland service provider destroys the data accidentally or maliciously, then what? Does the service contract allow the service provider to inspect troubleshoot their cloud in a way that involves snooping the network? What does that imply about your data privacy? If the Iceland government decides to decrypt your data and use it to further its national companies by taking a research shortcut funded via your company, then what? What about if your service provider does this purposefully outside US jurisdiction?</p><p>Odds are that any EULA around the cloud pretty squarely indemnifies the service provider from anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would worry about the third party doing something wrong with the data .
For example , if you have encrypted your data and that data winds up being stored in a data center in Iceland [ slashdot.org ] , then have you made an export ?
Has the cloud company made an export ?
Does US law apply to the Iceland servers ?
If the Iceland service provider destroys the data accidentally or maliciously , then what ?
Does the service contract allow the service provider to inspect troubleshoot their cloud in a way that involves snooping the network ?
What does that imply about your data privacy ?
If the Iceland government decides to decrypt your data and use it to further its national companies by taking a research shortcut funded via your company , then what ?
What about if your service provider does this purposefully outside US jurisdiction ? Odds are that any EULA around the cloud pretty squarely indemnifies the service provider from anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would worry about the third party doing something wrong with the data.
For example, if you have encrypted your data and that data winds up being stored in a data center in Iceland [slashdot.org], then have you made an export?
Has the cloud company made an export?
Does US law apply to the Iceland servers?
If the Iceland service provider destroys the data accidentally or maliciously, then what?
Does the service contract allow the service provider to inspect troubleshoot their cloud in a way that involves snooping the network?
What does that imply about your data privacy?
If the Iceland government decides to decrypt your data and use it to further its national companies by taking a research shortcut funded via your company, then what?
What about if your service provider does this purposefully outside US jurisdiction?Odds are that any EULA around the cloud pretty squarely indemnifies the service provider from anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819710</id>
	<title>Re:US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>prezpwns</author>
	<datestamp>1263919140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks to the 'Patriot Act' this is required by law. You can thank all the senators who did not read the entire bill before it had passed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks to the 'Patriot Act ' this is required by law .
You can thank all the senators who did not read the entire bill before it had passed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks to the 'Patriot Act' this is required by law.
You can thank all the senators who did not read the entire bill before it had passed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30821008</id>
	<title>To be a pedant</title>
	<author>ari\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1263924480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is not a "law review article" - it is a "note."  Published law review articles by students are extremely rare.  Law review articles are also generally quite a bit longer and more in-depth.  When a student who works on the school's law review writes something and it gets published, it is usually called a "note" or a "comment," specifically to distinguish it from the actual articles, which themselves are usually the product of a law professor or, in some cases, a practicing attorney.
<br> <br>
But that's just pedantry at its finest.  Mr. Couillard's note is now on my reading list and he should be proud of having tackled a controversial subject and certainly of having been published in a prestigious law review.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not a " law review article " - it is a " note .
" Published law review articles by students are extremely rare .
Law review articles are also generally quite a bit longer and more in-depth .
When a student who works on the school 's law review writes something and it gets published , it is usually called a " note " or a " comment , " specifically to distinguish it from the actual articles , which themselves are usually the product of a law professor or , in some cases , a practicing attorney .
But that 's just pedantry at its finest .
Mr. Couillard 's note is now on my reading list and he should be proud of having tackled a controversial subject and certainly of having been published in a prestigious law review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not a "law review article" - it is a "note.
"  Published law review articles by students are extremely rare.
Law review articles are also generally quite a bit longer and more in-depth.
When a student who works on the school's law review writes something and it gets published, it is usually called a "note" or a "comment," specifically to distinguish it from the actual articles, which themselves are usually the product of a law professor or, in some cases, a practicing attorney.
But that's just pedantry at its finest.
Mr. Couillard's note is now on my reading list and he should be proud of having tackled a controversial subject and certainly of having been published in a prestigious law review.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30822672</id>
	<title>My bank does not have keys</title>
	<author>stabiesoft</author>
	<datestamp>1263930840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to my safety deposit box. There are 2 keys to open the box. The bank inserts their key and I insert mine<br>in order to open the box. If I lose mine, they have made it very clear that it will cost me a couple of hundred<br>bucks for them to drill open the lock and re-key it. I think they will also drill it open under a subpoena. But<br>I will know next time I go to open it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to my safety deposit box .
There are 2 keys to open the box .
The bank inserts their key and I insert minein order to open the box .
If I lose mine , they have made it very clear that it will cost me a couple of hundredbucks for them to drill open the lock and re-key it .
I think they will also drill it open under a subpoena .
ButI will know next time I go to open it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to my safety deposit box.
There are 2 keys to open the box.
The bank inserts their key and I insert minein order to open the box.
If I lose mine, they have made it very clear that it will cost me a couple of hundredbucks for them to drill open the lock and re-key it.
I think they will also drill it open under a subpoena.
ButI will know next time I go to open it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818580</id>
	<title>But then again</title>
	<author>Dunbal</author>
	<datestamp>1263912960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you know anything at all about security, you won't let your data be stored on someone else's computers and travel on someone else's network in the first place. (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat\_Tony" title="wikipedia.org">Spoken in the voice of Fat Tony</a> [wikipedia.org]) Off-site storage is absolutely necessary, but there are other, more expensive, more tedious, but far more secure methods of keeping your data off site. And please don't keep a paper trail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you know anything at all about security , you wo n't let your data be stored on someone else 's computers and travel on someone else 's network in the first place .
( Spoken in the voice of Fat Tony [ wikipedia.org ] ) Off-site storage is absolutely necessary , but there are other , more expensive , more tedious , but far more secure methods of keeping your data off site .
And please do n't keep a paper trail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you know anything at all about security, you won't let your data be stored on someone else's computers and travel on someone else's network in the first place.
(Spoken in the voice of Fat Tony [wikipedia.org]) Off-site storage is absolutely necessary, but there are other, more expensive, more tedious, but far more secure methods of keeping your data off site.
And please don't keep a paper trail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820888</id>
	<title>Re:US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263924000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead, it says "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union...", which you aren't a part of if you are not a citizen.  I love what you are trying to do, but purposely ignoring the sentence in part does not make you insightful, but instead ignorant.</p><p>I agree that border searches and the suspension of our rights is appalling.  If you are not carrying any munitions or items that could cause immediate physical harm (weapons, explosives, etc), then I see no justification for additional searching and seizing of data products.  Data has never been used as a murder weapon.  It has non-physical ways to get into the US anyways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead , it says " We the people of the United States , in order to form a more perfect union... " , which you are n't a part of if you are not a citizen .
I love what you are trying to do , but purposely ignoring the sentence in part does not make you insightful , but instead ignorant.I agree that border searches and the suspension of our rights is appalling .
If you are not carrying any munitions or items that could cause immediate physical harm ( weapons , explosives , etc ) , then I see no justification for additional searching and seizing of data products .
Data has never been used as a murder weapon .
It has non-physical ways to get into the US anyways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead, it says "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union...", which you aren't a part of if you are not a citizen.
I love what you are trying to do, but purposely ignoring the sentence in part does not make you insightful, but instead ignorant.I agree that border searches and the suspension of our rights is appalling.
If you are not carrying any munitions or items that could cause immediate physical harm (weapons, explosives, etc), then I see no justification for additional searching and seizing of data products.
Data has never been used as a murder weapon.
It has non-physical ways to get into the US anyways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819602</id>
	<title>Obligatory George Carlin post</title>
	<author>Blue6</author>
	<datestamp>1263918480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = gaa9iw85tW8 [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8 [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820640</id>
	<title>Re:Stop insult people's intelligence</title>
	<author>gclef</author>
	<datestamp>1263923040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lawyers don't do that because they think you're dumb...they do it as a way to build out existing precedent.  If there already is law or precedent covering sealed envelopes, for example, and you can show that the situation you're looking at is functionally the same as a sealed envelope, then you can argue that existing precedent covers the situation and no new law is necessary.  Creating new precedent and/or law is rare, and judges are hesitant to do it unless there's a clear need.  If the lawyers can present their case as a simple analogy to existing laws and precedents, rather than having to break new ground, then they stand a much better chance of getting their case across to a judge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawyers do n't do that because they think you 're dumb...they do it as a way to build out existing precedent .
If there already is law or precedent covering sealed envelopes , for example , and you can show that the situation you 're looking at is functionally the same as a sealed envelope , then you can argue that existing precedent covers the situation and no new law is necessary .
Creating new precedent and/or law is rare , and judges are hesitant to do it unless there 's a clear need .
If the lawyers can present their case as a simple analogy to existing laws and precedents , rather than having to break new ground , then they stand a much better chance of getting their case across to a judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawyers don't do that because they think you're dumb...they do it as a way to build out existing precedent.
If there already is law or precedent covering sealed envelopes, for example, and you can show that the situation you're looking at is functionally the same as a sealed envelope, then you can argue that existing precedent covers the situation and no new law is necessary.
Creating new precedent and/or law is rare, and judges are hesitant to do it unless there's a clear need.
If the lawyers can present their case as a simple analogy to existing laws and precedents, rather than having to break new ground, then they stand a much better chance of getting their case across to a judge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818702</id>
	<title>Re:Hosting countries</title>
	<author>IBBoard</author>
	<datestamp>1263913860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or any law on the Internet, for that matter. I'm in the UK but the servers I rent are in the US, so I'm aware that the American government may have no qualms at all about implementing their (stupid or otherwise) legislation on my site and it is reasonable enough, since that is where the server sits.</p><p>The problem comes if I had a server in the UK and they try the same thing - they'll sure as hell feel that they have a right to enforce their laws (because it is relevant to an American citizen, damnit) but if my nation doesn't have a DMCA law, I'm not in their nation and the server isn't in their nation then there is no way that any sensible implementation of cross-border justice should apply. Of course, "sensible" is the key stumbling block there.</p><p>I guess the 4th Amendment would still apply to info about US citizens on foreign servers being accessed by US authority (since the subject and the authority are American and not doing that would create one hell of a wonderful loophole for nations to target their own people by going outside their borders) but if it is a foreign server with foreign access then you're playing by foreign rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or any law on the Internet , for that matter .
I 'm in the UK but the servers I rent are in the US , so I 'm aware that the American government may have no qualms at all about implementing their ( stupid or otherwise ) legislation on my site and it is reasonable enough , since that is where the server sits.The problem comes if I had a server in the UK and they try the same thing - they 'll sure as hell feel that they have a right to enforce their laws ( because it is relevant to an American citizen , damnit ) but if my nation does n't have a DMCA law , I 'm not in their nation and the server is n't in their nation then there is no way that any sensible implementation of cross-border justice should apply .
Of course , " sensible " is the key stumbling block there.I guess the 4th Amendment would still apply to info about US citizens on foreign servers being accessed by US authority ( since the subject and the authority are American and not doing that would create one hell of a wonderful loophole for nations to target their own people by going outside their borders ) but if it is a foreign server with foreign access then you 're playing by foreign rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or any law on the Internet, for that matter.
I'm in the UK but the servers I rent are in the US, so I'm aware that the American government may have no qualms at all about implementing their (stupid or otherwise) legislation on my site and it is reasonable enough, since that is where the server sits.The problem comes if I had a server in the UK and they try the same thing - they'll sure as hell feel that they have a right to enforce their laws (because it is relevant to an American citizen, damnit) but if my nation doesn't have a DMCA law, I'm not in their nation and the server isn't in their nation then there is no way that any sensible implementation of cross-border justice should apply.
Of course, "sensible" is the key stumbling block there.I guess the 4th Amendment would still apply to info about US citizens on foreign servers being accessed by US authority (since the subject and the authority are American and not doing that would create one hell of a wonderful loophole for nations to target their own people by going outside their borders) but if it is a foreign server with foreign access then you're playing by foreign rules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818324</id>
	<title>Jesus Fucking Christ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263910620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously.  Can we just save everybody the trouble and travel 5 years into the future when this whole cloud FAD runs its course?  Maybe by then all the hype surrounding Twitter and Facebook will have died down a bit.  And hopefully use of the word "blogosphere" will be punishable by death.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
Can we just save everybody the trouble and travel 5 years into the future when this whole cloud FAD runs its course ?
Maybe by then all the hype surrounding Twitter and Facebook will have died down a bit .
And hopefully use of the word " blogosphere " will be punishable by death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
Can we just save everybody the trouble and travel 5 years into the future when this whole cloud FAD runs its course?
Maybe by then all the hype surrounding Twitter and Facebook will have died down a bit.
And hopefully use of the word "blogosphere" will be punishable by death.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818524</id>
	<title>Part of the problem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263912600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The US constitutional amendment forbidding unreasonable searches and seizures is well settled in regard to the physical world</p></div><p>Electrons in computers ARE part of the physical world.  <br>Stop conceding that is it different!<br> <br>IT'S NOT!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The US constitutional amendment forbidding unreasonable searches and seizures is well settled in regard to the physical worldElectrons in computers ARE part of the physical world .
Stop conceding that is it different !
IT 'S NOT !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US constitutional amendment forbidding unreasonable searches and seizures is well settled in regard to the physical worldElectrons in computers ARE part of the physical world.
Stop conceding that is it different!
IT'S NOT!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818724</id>
	<title>Re:Hosting countries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263913920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The upside is simple.</p><p>The general idea is that a service provider can provide a service to an end-user which is probably better (more secure, reliable, better redundancies, backups) than anything that end-user can do themselves, for lower cost.</p><p>It makes little sense if you already know how to do this stuff yourself. It does make sense if, for example, you're a smallish business with next to no technical expertise of your own, and a limited IT budget.</p><p>However, it only makes sense if you're paying for the service. If you aren't paying, there should be no expectation that the service won't disappear tomorrow, having first sold your data to someone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The upside is simple.The general idea is that a service provider can provide a service to an end-user which is probably better ( more secure , reliable , better redundancies , backups ) than anything that end-user can do themselves , for lower cost.It makes little sense if you already know how to do this stuff yourself .
It does make sense if , for example , you 're a smallish business with next to no technical expertise of your own , and a limited IT budget.However , it only makes sense if you 're paying for the service .
If you are n't paying , there should be no expectation that the service wo n't disappear tomorrow , having first sold your data to someone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The upside is simple.The general idea is that a service provider can provide a service to an end-user which is probably better (more secure, reliable, better redundancies, backups) than anything that end-user can do themselves, for lower cost.It makes little sense if you already know how to do this stuff yourself.
It does make sense if, for example, you're a smallish business with next to no technical expertise of your own, and a limited IT budget.However, it only makes sense if you're paying for the service.
If you aren't paying, there should be no expectation that the service won't disappear tomorrow, having first sold your data to someone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818338</id>
	<title>Hosting countries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263910740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if the data center is in another country, would the 4th Amendment apply there?</p><p>If so, how would you enforce it? Soldiers with machine guns show up, grab all of your data, crack the encryption, and take what they want. And you'll do exactly what? </p><p>The data is gone and seen, so you're screwed. And even if you have super duper one hundred billion bit encryption, your data center and data are gone. So, you have up to the second back-ups?</p><p>Other than cost, I see no upside to cloud computing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if the data center is in another country , would the 4th Amendment apply there ? If so , how would you enforce it ?
Soldiers with machine guns show up , grab all of your data , crack the encryption , and take what they want .
And you 'll do exactly what ?
The data is gone and seen , so you 're screwed .
And even if you have super duper one hundred billion bit encryption , your data center and data are gone .
So , you have up to the second back-ups ? Other than cost , I see no upside to cloud computing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if the data center is in another country, would the 4th Amendment apply there?If so, how would you enforce it?
Soldiers with machine guns show up, grab all of your data, crack the encryption, and take what they want.
And you'll do exactly what?
The data is gone and seen, so you're screwed.
And even if you have super duper one hundred billion bit encryption, your data center and data are gone.
So, you have up to the second back-ups?Other than cost, I see no upside to cloud computing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819204</id>
	<title>Is the expectation of privacy legal?</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1263916680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The analogy of a locked briefcase is instructive.  If the government were to try to guess the combination, aren't they ignoring my intention of privacy? That is, I locked the briefcase, intending to shield the contents from disclosure without my consent.  Being a combination lock means nothing, because picking a key lock is the same effort, indeed snipping off the lock is the equivalent.  Does the means of entry matter?  Indeed, coercing me to divulge the combination, or give them the key, aren't these also violations of the Fifth Amendment, allowed only in the most dire of circumstances, if at all?</p><p>So if I password protect my files in the 'cloud', don't I have a similar expectation of privacy?  The government could indeed coerce the service provider to open the files (snip the lock).  And if I encrypt the files, why should the government be allowed to even attempt to decrypt them by any means (guess the combination or pick the lock) including coercing me to offer the key (Fifth Amendment again)?</p><p>The slope we are slipping down is an old one - new technology doesn't change the principles.  It just changes the means.  As the government does not have the right to enter my home and search my papers without due process, so they should not have the right to rifle through my 'papers' online, either.</p><p>While any expectation of privacy in normal email is futile, if I choose to use Gmail, for instance, via SSL, then I should be granted the expectation of privacy also in that communication.  And since I need my user ID and password to access my GMail account, I epxect my stored email data to also be granted that expectation of privacy.</p><p>The only reason that protections against unreasonable searches and seizures of electronically stored items should be 'lagging behind' the protections that 'more' physical items enjoys is twofold; 1. The government is charging in where they should not be, in the absence of court decisions, and 2. The courts have not yet handed down decisions that would retrain the governemnt.</p><p>But to point 1; Our goverment in the U.S. should not be seeking ways to expand their influence in the absence of restraint by the courts.  They should act like the officers of the court they should be and consider the legality in favor of the people.  And I'm sure they would claim to be doing so now and always.  I disagree.  Our government seeks to assume power in every area where the restrictions are unclear, or where the courts have not yet decided, or where they can justify the effort in the name of some greater good.  We would be better off if our government considered first, "should we be doing this?".</p><p>I know I am probably in the minority with this belief.  That doesn't make it wrong.  Our government was devised from documents that also described its limits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The analogy of a locked briefcase is instructive .
If the government were to try to guess the combination , are n't they ignoring my intention of privacy ?
That is , I locked the briefcase , intending to shield the contents from disclosure without my consent .
Being a combination lock means nothing , because picking a key lock is the same effort , indeed snipping off the lock is the equivalent .
Does the means of entry matter ?
Indeed , coercing me to divulge the combination , or give them the key , are n't these also violations of the Fifth Amendment , allowed only in the most dire of circumstances , if at all ? So if I password protect my files in the 'cloud ' , do n't I have a similar expectation of privacy ?
The government could indeed coerce the service provider to open the files ( snip the lock ) .
And if I encrypt the files , why should the government be allowed to even attempt to decrypt them by any means ( guess the combination or pick the lock ) including coercing me to offer the key ( Fifth Amendment again ) ? The slope we are slipping down is an old one - new technology does n't change the principles .
It just changes the means .
As the government does not have the right to enter my home and search my papers without due process , so they should not have the right to rifle through my 'papers ' online , either.While any expectation of privacy in normal email is futile , if I choose to use Gmail , for instance , via SSL , then I should be granted the expectation of privacy also in that communication .
And since I need my user ID and password to access my GMail account , I epxect my stored email data to also be granted that expectation of privacy.The only reason that protections against unreasonable searches and seizures of electronically stored items should be 'lagging behind ' the protections that 'more ' physical items enjoys is twofold ; 1 .
The government is charging in where they should not be , in the absence of court decisions , and 2 .
The courts have not yet handed down decisions that would retrain the governemnt.But to point 1 ; Our goverment in the U.S. should not be seeking ways to expand their influence in the absence of restraint by the courts .
They should act like the officers of the court they should be and consider the legality in favor of the people .
And I 'm sure they would claim to be doing so now and always .
I disagree .
Our government seeks to assume power in every area where the restrictions are unclear , or where the courts have not yet decided , or where they can justify the effort in the name of some greater good .
We would be better off if our government considered first , " should we be doing this ?
" .I know I am probably in the minority with this belief .
That does n't make it wrong .
Our government was devised from documents that also described its limits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The analogy of a locked briefcase is instructive.
If the government were to try to guess the combination, aren't they ignoring my intention of privacy?
That is, I locked the briefcase, intending to shield the contents from disclosure without my consent.
Being a combination lock means nothing, because picking a key lock is the same effort, indeed snipping off the lock is the equivalent.
Does the means of entry matter?
Indeed, coercing me to divulge the combination, or give them the key, aren't these also violations of the Fifth Amendment, allowed only in the most dire of circumstances, if at all?So if I password protect my files in the 'cloud', don't I have a similar expectation of privacy?
The government could indeed coerce the service provider to open the files (snip the lock).
And if I encrypt the files, why should the government be allowed to even attempt to decrypt them by any means (guess the combination or pick the lock) including coercing me to offer the key (Fifth Amendment again)?The slope we are slipping down is an old one - new technology doesn't change the principles.
It just changes the means.
As the government does not have the right to enter my home and search my papers without due process, so they should not have the right to rifle through my 'papers' online, either.While any expectation of privacy in normal email is futile, if I choose to use Gmail, for instance, via SSL, then I should be granted the expectation of privacy also in that communication.
And since I need my user ID and password to access my GMail account, I epxect my stored email data to also be granted that expectation of privacy.The only reason that protections against unreasonable searches and seizures of electronically stored items should be 'lagging behind' the protections that 'more' physical items enjoys is twofold; 1.
The government is charging in where they should not be, in the absence of court decisions, and 2.
The courts have not yet handed down decisions that would retrain the governemnt.But to point 1; Our goverment in the U.S. should not be seeking ways to expand their influence in the absence of restraint by the courts.
They should act like the officers of the court they should be and consider the legality in favor of the people.
And I'm sure they would claim to be doing so now and always.
I disagree.
Our government seeks to assume power in every area where the restrictions are unclear, or where the courts have not yet decided, or where they can justify the effort in the name of some greater good.
We would be better off if our government considered first, "should we be doing this?
".I know I am probably in the minority with this belief.
That doesn't make it wrong.
Our government was devised from documents that also described its limits.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300</id>
	<title>US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>naz404</author>
	<datestamp>1263910380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't the same privacy logic apply even more to your laptops and personal electronic devices when you're entering U.S. borders?

Having these people search your hard drive is an invasion of privacy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't the same privacy logic apply even more to your laptops and personal electronic devices when you 're entering U.S. borders ? Having these people search your hard drive is an invasion of privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't the same privacy logic apply even more to your laptops and personal electronic devices when you're entering U.S. borders?

Having these people search your hard drive is an invasion of privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818382</id>
	<title>The Fourth Amendment became a quaint notion</title>
	<author>Ellis D. Tripp</author>
	<datestamp>1263911280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>at the point when urine drug testing was mandated by the government for any company receiving government contracts. You know back in the days of Ronnie Raygun and the "Just Say No" crusades?</p><p>If you aren't secure against government searches OF YOUR OWN BODILY FLUIDS, do you really think that they will respect your right of privacy regarding some random 1s and 0s stored on a private corporation's computers somewhere?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>at the point when urine drug testing was mandated by the government for any company receiving government contracts .
You know back in the days of Ronnie Raygun and the " Just Say No " crusades ? If you are n't secure against government searches OF YOUR OWN BODILY FLUIDS , do you really think that they will respect your right of privacy regarding some random 1s and 0s stored on a private corporation 's computers somewhere ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>at the point when urine drug testing was mandated by the government for any company receiving government contracts.
You know back in the days of Ronnie Raygun and the "Just Say No" crusades?If you aren't secure against government searches OF YOUR OWN BODILY FLUIDS, do you really think that they will respect your right of privacy regarding some random 1s and 0s stored on a private corporation's computers somewhere?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30822528</id>
	<title>Re:US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>Eric in SF</author>
	<datestamp>1263930360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you fully aware of the controversy surrounding laptop searches at US Border points? Here is a quick article to get you up to speed:</p><p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020604763.html" title="washingtonpost.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020604763.html</a> [washingtonpost.com]</p><p>Basically the current thinking out of the US Government is that you are in a legal no-mans land when you re-enter the USA and the 4th amendment does NOT apply to anyone until the US grants them entry into the USA. When you're at an international airport in the USA, all areas before immigration and customs are legally not inside the USA, or so the legal reasoning goes. Furthermore, you have no choice but to submit your laptop for them to copy. I don't even think you have the option of simply returning from where you came, either.</p><p>It's disgusting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you fully aware of the controversy surrounding laptop searches at US Border points ?
Here is a quick article to get you up to speed : http : //www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020604763.html [ washingtonpost.com ] Basically the current thinking out of the US Government is that you are in a legal no-mans land when you re-enter the USA and the 4th amendment does NOT apply to anyone until the US grants them entry into the USA .
When you 're at an international airport in the USA , all areas before immigration and customs are legally not inside the USA , or so the legal reasoning goes .
Furthermore , you have no choice but to submit your laptop for them to copy .
I do n't even think you have the option of simply returning from where you came , either.It 's disgusting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you fully aware of the controversy surrounding laptop searches at US Border points?
Here is a quick article to get you up to speed:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020604763.html [washingtonpost.com]Basically the current thinking out of the US Government is that you are in a legal no-mans land when you re-enter the USA and the 4th amendment does NOT apply to anyone until the US grants them entry into the USA.
When you're at an international airport in the USA, all areas before immigration and customs are legally not inside the USA, or so the legal reasoning goes.
Furthermore, you have no choice but to submit your laptop for them to copy.
I don't even think you have the option of simply returning from where you came, either.It's disgusting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820018</id>
	<title>Re:US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1263920280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that I'm agreeing with the laptop searches, but borders are funny places and the usual rules don't always apply. Customs officials can already search your belongings and/or your person(including rather invasive search procedures) with very little cause and certainly without a warrant. If they couldn't they couldn't do their jobs. To use the example from the summary, if you walk through customs with your locked briefcase you're expected to open it if they ask you. If it contained your confidential medical records, there's very little you could do to stop customs from looking at them if they wanted to. If you were importing pirated dvds in a physical format, you could be searched and charged.</p><p>Now there are certainly some new issues with computers that never existed before. Very few people travel with a folder full of their financial records for the last 5 years, but a lot of people store that on computers. It's certainly a thorny legal issue, but I'll make the prediction that the ACLU is going to lose the case they've brought about this particular issue. The search of laptops is an obvious application of the current rules, and while it may raise some issues that we've not encountered before, the legal premise is likely sound.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I 'm agreeing with the laptop searches , but borders are funny places and the usual rules do n't always apply .
Customs officials can already search your belongings and/or your person ( including rather invasive search procedures ) with very little cause and certainly without a warrant .
If they could n't they could n't do their jobs .
To use the example from the summary , if you walk through customs with your locked briefcase you 're expected to open it if they ask you .
If it contained your confidential medical records , there 's very little you could do to stop customs from looking at them if they wanted to .
If you were importing pirated dvds in a physical format , you could be searched and charged.Now there are certainly some new issues with computers that never existed before .
Very few people travel with a folder full of their financial records for the last 5 years , but a lot of people store that on computers .
It 's certainly a thorny legal issue , but I 'll make the prediction that the ACLU is going to lose the case they 've brought about this particular issue .
The search of laptops is an obvious application of the current rules , and while it may raise some issues that we 've not encountered before , the legal premise is likely sound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I'm agreeing with the laptop searches, but borders are funny places and the usual rules don't always apply.
Customs officials can already search your belongings and/or your person(including rather invasive search procedures) with very little cause and certainly without a warrant.
If they couldn't they couldn't do their jobs.
To use the example from the summary, if you walk through customs with your locked briefcase you're expected to open it if they ask you.
If it contained your confidential medical records, there's very little you could do to stop customs from looking at them if they wanted to.
If you were importing pirated dvds in a physical format, you could be searched and charged.Now there are certainly some new issues with computers that never existed before.
Very few people travel with a folder full of their financial records for the last 5 years, but a lot of people store that on computers.
It's certainly a thorny legal issue, but I'll make the prediction that the ACLU is going to lose the case they've brought about this particular issue.
The search of laptops is an obvious application of the current rules, and while it may raise some issues that we've not encountered before, the legal premise is likely sound.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820610</id>
	<title>Re:US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>Animaether</author>
	<datestamp>1263922920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>if you don't want your laptops to be searched,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/<b>you are free to leave</b>/, but if you want to enter we need to search your laptop</p></div></blockquote><p> (emphasis mine)<br>You don't honestly think that, do you?</p><p>I think you meant "you are free not to come here in the first place".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you do n't want your laptops to be searched , /you are free to leave/ , but if you want to enter we need to search your laptop ( emphasis mine ) You do n't honestly think that , do you ? I think you meant " you are free not to come here in the first place " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you don't want your laptops to be searched, /you are free to leave/, but if you want to enter we need to search your laptop (emphasis mine)You don't honestly think that, do you?I think you meant "you are free not to come here in the first place".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818804</id>
	<title>Re:Hosting countries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263914520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More to the point, as a Canadian I have to know that my data will NOT be stored in the states because of the weird (Mostly PATRIOT) laws there that make a mockery of any security provisions we might want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More to the point , as a Canadian I have to know that my data will NOT be stored in the states because of the weird ( Mostly PATRIOT ) laws there that make a mockery of any security provisions we might want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More to the point, as a Canadian I have to know that my data will NOT be stored in the states because of the weird (Mostly PATRIOT) laws there that make a mockery of any security provisions we might want.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819974</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb idea anyhow.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263920100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Why the hell would I want to give a copy of the keys to the service provider?</p><p>Um, so that they could process the data?<br>Unless I am wrong, the "cloud" is not just about storing data.</p><p>Anyhow, any talk about "privacy" or fourth amendments, or whatever, is just so much noise.<br>The USA PATRIOT card trumps every thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Why the hell would I want to give a copy of the keys to the service provider ? Um , so that they could process the data ? Unless I am wrong , the " cloud " is not just about storing data.Anyhow , any talk about " privacy " or fourth amendments , or whatever , is just so much noise.The USA PATRIOT card trumps every thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Why the hell would I want to give a copy of the keys to the service provider?Um, so that they could process the data?Unless I am wrong, the "cloud" is not just about storing data.Anyhow, any talk about "privacy" or fourth amendments, or whatever, is just so much noise.The USA PATRIOT card trumps every thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819634</id>
	<title>Re:US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1263918720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try applying that to say, driving across the border where you're no more a hazard than anywhere else on the road. Right or wrong, countries have asserted the right to search anyone and anything on the border before letting them into the country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try applying that to say , driving across the border where you 're no more a hazard than anywhere else on the road .
Right or wrong , countries have asserted the right to search anyone and anything on the border before letting them into the country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try applying that to say, driving across the border where you're no more a hazard than anywhere else on the road.
Right or wrong, countries have asserted the right to search anyone and anything on the border before letting them into the country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819348</id>
	<title>the SCOTUS has already ruled against email.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263917400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it doesn't apply to email, so why would it apply here?</p><p>I guess those old fuddie duddies that PRINT everything have the right idea...</p><p>TSCOTUS only honors physical papers as your effects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it does n't apply to email , so why would it apply here ? I guess those old fuddie duddies that PRINT everything have the right idea...TSCOTUS only honors physical papers as your effects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it doesn't apply to email, so why would it apply here?I guess those old fuddie duddies that PRINT everything have the right idea...TSCOTUS only honors physical papers as your effects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30824034</id>
	<title>David A. Couillard = D Avid Cloud Liar (anagram!)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263893340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>law student, David A. Couillard.</p></div><p>David A. Couillard anagrams:<br>- D Avid Cloud Liar<br>- D Liar A Cloud Diva<br>- Diovular Clad Aid<br>- Virucidal DAO Lad<br>- D Avid Cloud Rail<br>- Did AV Cloud Lair<br>- Cordial Dual Diva<br>- Lucid Variola Dad</p><p>How many more of the 1321 anagrams I found do I need to post for Slashdot users to realize this story is a hoax?<br>Freakin collective WHOOOSH!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>law student , David A. Couillard.David A. Couillard anagrams : - D Avid Cloud Liar- D Liar A Cloud Diva- Diovular Clad Aid- Virucidal DAO Lad- D Avid Cloud Rail- Did AV Cloud Lair- Cordial Dual Diva- Lucid Variola DadHow many more of the 1321 anagrams I found do I need to post for Slashdot users to realize this story is a hoax ? Freakin collective WHOOOSH !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>law student, David A. Couillard.David A. Couillard anagrams:- D Avid Cloud Liar- D Liar A Cloud Diva- Diovular Clad Aid- Virucidal DAO Lad- D Avid Cloud Rail- Did AV Cloud Lair- Cordial Dual Diva- Lucid Variola DadHow many more of the 1321 anagrams I found do I need to post for Slashdot users to realize this story is a hoax?Freakin collective WHOOOSH!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30821468</id>
	<title>Safety deposit box keys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263926460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Banks don't have keys to your safety deposit box.  If you lose your keys, they have to drill the box.  That is a REAL expectation of privacy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Banks do n't have keys to your safety deposit box .
If you lose your keys , they have to drill the box .
That is a REAL expectation of privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Banks don't have keys to your safety deposit box.
If you lose your keys, they have to drill the box.
That is a REAL expectation of privacy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818592</id>
	<title>Re:It's very simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263913020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Encryption is pointless if you want to keep your data from the police in the UK. We have to supply encryption keys if they ask.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Encryption is pointless if you want to keep your data from the police in the UK .
We have to supply encryption keys if they ask .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Encryption is pointless if you want to keep your data from the police in the UK.
We have to supply encryption keys if they ask.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818546</id>
	<title>Re:US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>MrNaz</author>
	<datestamp>1263912720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm... perhaps you could just put your laptop in an envelope. I wonder if that would work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm... perhaps you could just put your laptop in an envelope .
I wonder if that would work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm... perhaps you could just put your laptop in an envelope.
I wonder if that would work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818746</id>
	<title>No easy access to a cloud if not the owner</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263914100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here in Holland the landlord does not have a key to a tenant's space. The landlord is not allowed to enter the tenant's space without the express permission of the tenant. I think the same should apply to a service provider in relation to the users storage unit in the cloud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in Holland the landlord does not have a key to a tenant 's space .
The landlord is not allowed to enter the tenant 's space without the express permission of the tenant .
I think the same should apply to a service provider in relation to the users storage unit in the cloud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in Holland the landlord does not have a key to a tenant's space.
The landlord is not allowed to enter the tenant's space without the express permission of the tenant.
I think the same should apply to a service provider in relation to the users storage unit in the cloud.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819068</id>
	<title>folks</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1263915900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you want something private, don't put it on the internet</p><p>if you want a private conversation, walk with the person on a beach</p><p>everything else is subject to snooping, and not just by the government. there are other less savory entities out there that can pilfer your information</p><p>so if its important, just keep it off the wires. this is a complete shortcircuiting of all of the legal arguments</p><p>because even if you successfully clamped down on the government across all legal avenues, the government really is the least of your worries in terms of who can snoop on you and why. there is no protection that works except your own attempts to secure your data. that's your job, not the government's</p><p>there's people reading this comment who buy guns because they don't trust the government to protect them. so why would anyone trust the government to protect their privacy online?</p><p>protect yourself with your own protocols for how and when and what is disclosed over a wire. this shortcircuits all the needless legal arguments, since the potential list of online snoopers does not begin nor end with your friendly local government bureaucrat</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you want something private , do n't put it on the internetif you want a private conversation , walk with the person on a beacheverything else is subject to snooping , and not just by the government .
there are other less savory entities out there that can pilfer your informationso if its important , just keep it off the wires .
this is a complete shortcircuiting of all of the legal argumentsbecause even if you successfully clamped down on the government across all legal avenues , the government really is the least of your worries in terms of who can snoop on you and why .
there is no protection that works except your own attempts to secure your data .
that 's your job , not the government'sthere 's people reading this comment who buy guns because they do n't trust the government to protect them .
so why would anyone trust the government to protect their privacy online ? protect yourself with your own protocols for how and when and what is disclosed over a wire .
this shortcircuits all the needless legal arguments , since the potential list of online snoopers does not begin nor end with your friendly local government bureaucrat</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you want something private, don't put it on the internetif you want a private conversation, walk with the person on a beacheverything else is subject to snooping, and not just by the government.
there are other less savory entities out there that can pilfer your informationso if its important, just keep it off the wires.
this is a complete shortcircuiting of all of the legal argumentsbecause even if you successfully clamped down on the government across all legal avenues, the government really is the least of your worries in terms of who can snoop on you and why.
there is no protection that works except your own attempts to secure your data.
that's your job, not the government'sthere's people reading this comment who buy guns because they don't trust the government to protect them.
so why would anyone trust the government to protect their privacy online?protect yourself with your own protocols for how and when and what is disclosed over a wire.
this shortcircuits all the needless legal arguments, since the potential list of online snoopers does not begin nor end with your friendly local government bureaucrat</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820062</id>
	<title>Re:Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud.</title>
	<author>NightlordTW</author>
	<datestamp>1263920460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The case studies all use words like "secure", "MD5", "RSS feeds" and "encryption" to describe the security of The Cloud."

- the word "secure" is very ambiguous. Of course a lock is more secure than no lock, but we all know several types of locks exist.
- MD5 is actually outdated, cfr articles about MD5 collision attack. Even though mainstream computers are not powerful enough for such an attack, there are many trojans and other malicious software that allow infected computers to work as an attack unit in a whole cluster.
- "RSS feeds" has nothing to do with security, and is just a document in XML format to frequently publish some summary data. Of course, you can add encrypted data in an RSS feed, but I dont see much interest in that since RSS is mainly meant for short messages
- "encryption" is no guarantuee for security

Even though many people are attracked by fancy security-related terms, many forget that:
- security is determined by the weakest chain, not the strongest. Possible weaknesses are weak passwords, outdated encryption, data theft at the source or destination,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
- security is based on confidence, in the sense that the company you send secure data to can - in theory - do with it as he likes.
- most fully encrypted data is only "secure" for a certain amount of time. After all, computers become more powerful every day and more and more people use to have one (or more).</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The case studies all use words like " secure " , " MD5 " , " RSS feeds " and " encryption " to describe the security of The Cloud .
" - the word " secure " is very ambiguous .
Of course a lock is more secure than no lock , but we all know several types of locks exist .
- MD5 is actually outdated , cfr articles about MD5 collision attack .
Even though mainstream computers are not powerful enough for such an attack , there are many trojans and other malicious software that allow infected computers to work as an attack unit in a whole cluster .
- " RSS feeds " has nothing to do with security , and is just a document in XML format to frequently publish some summary data .
Of course , you can add encrypted data in an RSS feed , but I dont see much interest in that since RSS is mainly meant for short messages - " encryption " is no guarantuee for security Even though many people are attracked by fancy security-related terms , many forget that : - security is determined by the weakest chain , not the strongest .
Possible weaknesses are weak passwords , outdated encryption , data theft at the source or destination , .. . - security is based on confidence , in the sense that the company you send secure data to can - in theory - do with it as he likes .
- most fully encrypted data is only " secure " for a certain amount of time .
After all , computers become more powerful every day and more and more people use to have one ( or more ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The case studies all use words like "secure", "MD5", "RSS feeds" and "encryption" to describe the security of The Cloud.
"

- the word "secure" is very ambiguous.
Of course a lock is more secure than no lock, but we all know several types of locks exist.
- MD5 is actually outdated, cfr articles about MD5 collision attack.
Even though mainstream computers are not powerful enough for such an attack, there are many trojans and other malicious software that allow infected computers to work as an attack unit in a whole cluster.
- "RSS feeds" has nothing to do with security, and is just a document in XML format to frequently publish some summary data.
Of course, you can add encrypted data in an RSS feed, but I dont see much interest in that since RSS is mainly meant for short messages
- "encryption" is no guarantuee for security

Even though many people are attracked by fancy security-related terms, many forget that:
- security is determined by the weakest chain, not the strongest.
Possible weaknesses are weak passwords, outdated encryption, data theft at the source or destination, ...
- security is based on confidence, in the sense that the company you send secure data to can - in theory - do with it as he likes.
- most fully encrypted data is only "secure" for a certain amount of time.
After all, computers become more powerful every day and more and more people use to have one (or more).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818328</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30824764</id>
	<title>Re:My bank does not have keys</title>
	<author>ShaunC</author>
	<datestamp>1263897060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think they will also drill it open under a subpoena. But I will know next time I go to open it...</p></div><p>Not if they replace the drilled-out lock with another one keyed to the same key...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they will also drill it open under a subpoena .
But I will know next time I go to open it...Not if they replace the drilled-out lock with another one keyed to the same key.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they will also drill it open under a subpoena.
But I will know next time I go to open it...Not if they replace the drilled-out lock with another one keyed to the same key...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30822672</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820488</id>
	<title>Re:US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263922320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why you should have a small partition that boots up a Windows OS with nothing on it, and several encrypted partitions that are only loaded when the system is booted using one of several USB devices, and the proper key-phrase is provided. Most border guards are grunts, having little or no real knowledge of the systems they are looking at. So the key is to provide them with what they expect. This is becoming increasingly common in business - after all, when entering France it is common knowledge that your information will be copied. While the US isn't quite that blatant - unless there is something that piques their interest - all citizens must protect their own privacy. While the Founding Fathers may have wanted warrantless searches to be illegal, that right has been trampled into the mud with many others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why you should have a small partition that boots up a Windows OS with nothing on it , and several encrypted partitions that are only loaded when the system is booted using one of several USB devices , and the proper key-phrase is provided .
Most border guards are grunts , having little or no real knowledge of the systems they are looking at .
So the key is to provide them with what they expect .
This is becoming increasingly common in business - after all , when entering France it is common knowledge that your information will be copied .
While the US is n't quite that blatant - unless there is something that piques their interest - all citizens must protect their own privacy .
While the Founding Fathers may have wanted warrantless searches to be illegal , that right has been trampled into the mud with many others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why you should have a small partition that boots up a Windows OS with nothing on it, and several encrypted partitions that are only loaded when the system is booted using one of several USB devices, and the proper key-phrase is provided.
Most border guards are grunts, having little or no real knowledge of the systems they are looking at.
So the key is to provide them with what they expect.
This is becoming increasingly common in business - after all, when entering France it is common knowledge that your information will be copied.
While the US isn't quite that blatant - unless there is something that piques their interest - all citizens must protect their own privacy.
While the Founding Fathers may have wanted warrantless searches to be illegal, that right has been trampled into the mud with many others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818536</id>
	<title>Re:The Fourth Amendment became a quaint notion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263912720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that you can choose not to submit to the drug testing, but you may not have a job after that. It is a pre-requisite of doing work for the government. Just like if a private employer has drug testing you can choose not to work for that employer. With your data it is a different story, you can choose not to use the cloud, but still the data itself is supposed to be secured, it's just like the government cannot just come into your house and start going through your filing cabinets. They should not be able to go through your virtual filing cabinet. On the other hand if you are not doing anything illegal do you have anything to worry about? Maybe not now but someday I might say yes. The way the US governement is heading both under Republican and Democrat leadership I worry that someday the first amendment isn't going to amount to a hill of beans. Ever read 1984?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that you can choose not to submit to the drug testing , but you may not have a job after that .
It is a pre-requisite of doing work for the government .
Just like if a private employer has drug testing you can choose not to work for that employer .
With your data it is a different story , you can choose not to use the cloud , but still the data itself is supposed to be secured , it 's just like the government can not just come into your house and start going through your filing cabinets .
They should not be able to go through your virtual filing cabinet .
On the other hand if you are not doing anything illegal do you have anything to worry about ?
Maybe not now but someday I might say yes .
The way the US governement is heading both under Republican and Democrat leadership I worry that someday the first amendment is n't going to amount to a hill of beans .
Ever read 1984 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that you can choose not to submit to the drug testing, but you may not have a job after that.
It is a pre-requisite of doing work for the government.
Just like if a private employer has drug testing you can choose not to work for that employer.
With your data it is a different story, you can choose not to use the cloud, but still the data itself is supposed to be secured, it's just like the government cannot just come into your house and start going through your filing cabinets.
They should not be able to go through your virtual filing cabinet.
On the other hand if you are not doing anything illegal do you have anything to worry about?
Maybe not now but someday I might say yes.
The way the US governement is heading both under Republican and Democrat leadership I worry that someday the first amendment isn't going to amount to a hill of beans.
Ever read 1984?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818434</id>
	<title>Re:US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1263911880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>They don't need to search my laptop at all. No picture, document, executable, or video on my laptop is a risk to the aircraft or any person on that aircraft.<br> <br>The legality of the contents of the laptop can be contested if I am arrested within the US and the laptop seized as evidence. Until that point, that laptop is a sealed envelope; X-ray and perform a cursory <b>physical</b> examination all you like to ensure that it is a laptop computer, but like the documents inside the envelope, the content of the disk is not subject to being examined or duplicated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't need to search my laptop at all .
No picture , document , executable , or video on my laptop is a risk to the aircraft or any person on that aircraft .
The legality of the contents of the laptop can be contested if I am arrested within the US and the laptop seized as evidence .
Until that point , that laptop is a sealed envelope ; X-ray and perform a cursory physical examination all you like to ensure that it is a laptop computer , but like the documents inside the envelope , the content of the disk is not subject to being examined or duplicated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't need to search my laptop at all.
No picture, document, executable, or video on my laptop is a risk to the aircraft or any person on that aircraft.
The legality of the contents of the laptop can be contested if I am arrested within the US and the laptop seized as evidence.
Until that point, that laptop is a sealed envelope; X-ray and perform a cursory physical examination all you like to ensure that it is a laptop computer, but like the documents inside the envelope, the content of the disk is not subject to being examined or duplicated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818962</id>
	<title>Re:Hosting countries</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1263915480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>"crack the encryption"<br> <br>

That is really nowhere near as easy as you make it sound, at least not with any modern cipher.  Even the NSA, with the most vast computing resources in the entire world, would have a lot of difficulty cracking AES or Serpent, barring some completely novel attack that has eluded the crypto research community thus far.<br> <br>

If you want to break someone's crypto, you should not even think about attacking it directly.  You should think about attacking the person, or at least planting recording devices in their home or on their computer, so that you can get the secret key.  If a foreign government wanted to do this, they would have to either commit an act of war by attacking a US citizen on US soil, or wait until you enter their country and kidnap you (or if you bring your computer with you, plant a recording device or software).</htmltext>
<tokenext>" crack the encryption " That is really nowhere near as easy as you make it sound , at least not with any modern cipher .
Even the NSA , with the most vast computing resources in the entire world , would have a lot of difficulty cracking AES or Serpent , barring some completely novel attack that has eluded the crypto research community thus far .
If you want to break someone 's crypto , you should not even think about attacking it directly .
You should think about attacking the person , or at least planting recording devices in their home or on their computer , so that you can get the secret key .
If a foreign government wanted to do this , they would have to either commit an act of war by attacking a US citizen on US soil , or wait until you enter their country and kidnap you ( or if you bring your computer with you , plant a recording device or software ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"crack the encryption" 

That is really nowhere near as easy as you make it sound, at least not with any modern cipher.
Even the NSA, with the most vast computing resources in the entire world, would have a lot of difficulty cracking AES or Serpent, barring some completely novel attack that has eluded the crypto research community thus far.
If you want to break someone's crypto, you should not even think about attacking it directly.
You should think about attacking the person, or at least planting recording devices in their home or on their computer, so that you can get the secret key.
If a foreign government wanted to do this, they would have to either commit an act of war by attacking a US citizen on US soil, or wait until you enter their country and kidnap you (or if you bring your computer with you, plant a recording device or software).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818638</id>
	<title>Re:It's very simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263913440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>especially when you plan to store it online in this new-fangled cloud thing, then encrypt it. You can't trust a service provider to stand up to a government access order, and you can't rely on the security of a storage system that you didn't make yourself.</p><p>I recommend simply carrying a bootable GNU/Linux distribution on a USB thumbdrive and remotely access your data once inside the USofA. If the Border Patrol wants to image your USB thumbdrive just be certain no configuration information pointing back to your data is stored on the USB thumbdrive. In fact, use a memory-resident GNU/Linux distribution or one without a swap file partition enabled for added protection against backdoor search and seizure.</p><p>The long-standing authority of border agents to search incoming materials is permitted under the law regarding protection against contraband being smuggled into the country. Contraband has been defined very loosely by legislation and the courts. The hamburg in the Big Mac you ate immediately prior to arrival at the border is contraband yet rarely enforced for obvious reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>especially when you plan to store it online in this new-fangled cloud thing , then encrypt it .
You ca n't trust a service provider to stand up to a government access order , and you ca n't rely on the security of a storage system that you did n't make yourself.I recommend simply carrying a bootable GNU/Linux distribution on a USB thumbdrive and remotely access your data once inside the USofA .
If the Border Patrol wants to image your USB thumbdrive just be certain no configuration information pointing back to your data is stored on the USB thumbdrive .
In fact , use a memory-resident GNU/Linux distribution or one without a swap file partition enabled for added protection against backdoor search and seizure.The long-standing authority of border agents to search incoming materials is permitted under the law regarding protection against contraband being smuggled into the country .
Contraband has been defined very loosely by legislation and the courts .
The hamburg in the Big Mac you ate immediately prior to arrival at the border is contraband yet rarely enforced for obvious reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>especially when you plan to store it online in this new-fangled cloud thing, then encrypt it.
You can't trust a service provider to stand up to a government access order, and you can't rely on the security of a storage system that you didn't make yourself.I recommend simply carrying a bootable GNU/Linux distribution on a USB thumbdrive and remotely access your data once inside the USofA.
If the Border Patrol wants to image your USB thumbdrive just be certain no configuration information pointing back to your data is stored on the USB thumbdrive.
In fact, use a memory-resident GNU/Linux distribution or one without a swap file partition enabled for added protection against backdoor search and seizure.The long-standing authority of border agents to search incoming materials is permitted under the law regarding protection against contraband being smuggled into the country.
Contraband has been defined very loosely by legislation and the courts.
The hamburg in the Big Mac you ate immediately prior to arrival at the border is contraband yet rarely enforced for obvious reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818516</id>
	<title>4th Amendment and progress</title>
	<author>ElitistWhiner</author>
	<datestamp>1263912480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't it a core value of the Internet that it was abstracted above   limitations of juridical boundaries, political division and secular belief systems to provide redundant fail-safe communication world wide enabling human progress in the face of systemic failed governance?</p><p>How does advocating \_for\_ juridical application of the 4th virutally annexing "the cloud" as the 51st state... tell me again how that abstracts the medium above the landscape.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't it a core value of the Internet that it was abstracted above limitations of juridical boundaries , political division and secular belief systems to provide redundant fail-safe communication world wide enabling human progress in the face of systemic failed governance ? How does advocating \ _for \ _ juridical application of the 4th virutally annexing " the cloud " as the 51st state... tell me again how that abstracts the medium above the landscape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't it a core value of the Internet that it was abstracted above   limitations of juridical boundaries, political division and secular belief systems to provide redundant fail-safe communication world wide enabling human progress in the face of systemic failed governance?How does advocating \_for\_ juridical application of the 4th virutally annexing "the cloud" as the 51st state... tell me again how that abstracts the medium above the landscape.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30821198</id>
	<title>Re:Hosting countries</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263925200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, it only makes sense if you're paying for the service. If you aren't paying, there should be no expectation that the service won't disappear tomorrow, having first sold your data to someone else.</p></div><p>Or discovered that one of their boxes is owned and has been re-imaged out from under you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , it only makes sense if you 're paying for the service .
If you are n't paying , there should be no expectation that the service wo n't disappear tomorrow , having first sold your data to someone else.Or discovered that one of their boxes is owned and has been re-imaged out from under you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, it only makes sense if you're paying for the service.
If you aren't paying, there should be no expectation that the service won't disappear tomorrow, having first sold your data to someone else.Or discovered that one of their boxes is owned and has been re-imaged out from under you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30825780</id>
	<title>Re:US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1263901260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My hard drive is full of what appears to be random data. Search away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My hard drive is full of what appears to be random data .
Search away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My hard drive is full of what appears to be random data.
Search away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818554</id>
	<title>The 4th amendment grants government.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1263912780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is worth noting that under the Constitution, there is no federal power to search or seize, at all.  Thus people who say that the 4th amendment doesn't list something as protected, like a computer file, miss that point.  The 4th amendment is that the government is allowed to search mail, with a warrant, and nothing else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is worth noting that under the Constitution , there is no federal power to search or seize , at all .
Thus people who say that the 4th amendment does n't list something as protected , like a computer file , miss that point .
The 4th amendment is that the government is allowed to search mail , with a warrant , and nothing else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is worth noting that under the Constitution, there is no federal power to search or seize, at all.
Thus people who say that the 4th amendment doesn't list something as protected, like a computer file, miss that point.
The 4th amendment is that the government is allowed to search mail, with a warrant, and nothing else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819224</id>
	<title>Re:US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1263916800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The Fourth Amendment has long been held to apply to all people under US jurisdiction, whether citizens or not.  However, as stated by another reply to your post, the Supreme Court has ruled, rightly or wrongly, that it does not apply to border searches.  So, by current law, the government is within its rights to search you at the border regardless of your citizenship status.

It's a fallacy to state that the rights outlined in the Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights) are granted only to citizens.  The Constitution makes distinctions between "citizens" and "persons" all over the place.  When the Constitution refers to "persons" or "people" (as it does in the fourth amendment), it is referring to ALL people, citizen or not.  The founders believed in the concept of inalienable rights, which are rights granted to all people (or at least all white males in their day) by their Creator.  The purpose of enumerating some of the more important of those rights in the Constitution was not to grant them, but to prevent the government from infringing on them.</p></div><p>Isn't it amazing that 218 years later even "activist judges" would consider the constitution a radical document with respect to "inalienable rights"? I fear that reflects more on the current society than on the wisdom of the founding fathers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Fourth Amendment has long been held to apply to all people under US jurisdiction , whether citizens or not .
However , as stated by another reply to your post , the Supreme Court has ruled , rightly or wrongly , that it does not apply to border searches .
So , by current law , the government is within its rights to search you at the border regardless of your citizenship status .
It 's a fallacy to state that the rights outlined in the Constitution ( particularly the Bill of Rights ) are granted only to citizens .
The Constitution makes distinctions between " citizens " and " persons " all over the place .
When the Constitution refers to " persons " or " people " ( as it does in the fourth amendment ) , it is referring to ALL people , citizen or not .
The founders believed in the concept of inalienable rights , which are rights granted to all people ( or at least all white males in their day ) by their Creator .
The purpose of enumerating some of the more important of those rights in the Constitution was not to grant them , but to prevent the government from infringing on them.Is n't it amazing that 218 years later even " activist judges " would consider the constitution a radical document with respect to " inalienable rights " ?
I fear that reflects more on the current society than on the wisdom of the founding fathers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Fourth Amendment has long been held to apply to all people under US jurisdiction, whether citizens or not.
However, as stated by another reply to your post, the Supreme Court has ruled, rightly or wrongly, that it does not apply to border searches.
So, by current law, the government is within its rights to search you at the border regardless of your citizenship status.
It's a fallacy to state that the rights outlined in the Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights) are granted only to citizens.
The Constitution makes distinctions between "citizens" and "persons" all over the place.
When the Constitution refers to "persons" or "people" (as it does in the fourth amendment), it is referring to ALL people, citizen or not.
The founders believed in the concept of inalienable rights, which are rights granted to all people (or at least all white males in their day) by their Creator.
The purpose of enumerating some of the more important of those rights in the Constitution was not to grant them, but to prevent the government from infringing on them.Isn't it amazing that 218 years later even "activist judges" would consider the constitution a radical document with respect to "inalienable rights"?
I fear that reflects more on the current society than on the wisdom of the founding fathers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818320</id>
	<title>It's very simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263910560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want your data to be safe,<b>especially</b> when you plan to store it online in this new-fangled cloud thing, then encrypt it. You can't trust a service provider to stand up to a government access order, and you can't rely on the security of a storage system that you didn't make yourself.</p><p>Be responsible for your own data privacy instead of relying on an ambiguous interpretation of an ammendment written before the days of digital data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want your data to be safe,especially when you plan to store it online in this new-fangled cloud thing , then encrypt it .
You ca n't trust a service provider to stand up to a government access order , and you ca n't rely on the security of a storage system that you did n't make yourself.Be responsible for your own data privacy instead of relying on an ambiguous interpretation of an ammendment written before the days of digital data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want your data to be safe,especially when you plan to store it online in this new-fangled cloud thing, then encrypt it.
You can't trust a service provider to stand up to a government access order, and you can't rely on the security of a storage system that you didn't make yourself.Be responsible for your own data privacy instead of relying on an ambiguous interpretation of an ammendment written before the days of digital data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820408</id>
	<title>Re:This was addressed by the Stored Communications</title>
	<author>Eskarel</author>
	<datestamp>1263921840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well that's actually a fairly slim difference.</p><p>Generally speaking, if you can get a court order, you can get a warrant. It's not like the damned things are hard to get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that 's actually a fairly slim difference.Generally speaking , if you can get a court order , you can get a warrant .
It 's not like the damned things are hard to get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that's actually a fairly slim difference.Generally speaking, if you can get a court order, you can get a warrant.
It's not like the damned things are hard to get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819840</id>
	<title>Re:US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263919560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people who wrote the Fourth Amendment did not question such border searches, which makes it hard to argue today that the Fourth Amendment was intended to apply.</p><p>Yeah, when Thomas Jefferson got on an airplane, he never complained about his laptop's hard disk being cloned!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who wrote the Fourth Amendment did not question such border searches , which makes it hard to argue today that the Fourth Amendment was intended to apply.Yeah , when Thomas Jefferson got on an airplane , he never complained about his laptop 's hard disk being cloned !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who wrote the Fourth Amendment did not question such border searches, which makes it hard to argue today that the Fourth Amendment was intended to apply.Yeah, when Thomas Jefferson got on an airplane, he never complained about his laptop's hard disk being cloned!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818384</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30821576</id>
	<title>Reciprocity</title>
	<author>Zarf</author>
	<datestamp>1263926940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My issue is reciprocity: If it is legal for the government to "peer into" my private data they should not be allowed to take umberage if I peer into theirs. (note: this is a joke do not put me in jail)</p><p>If privacy is dead it should be dead for *everyone*.</p><p>If privacy is not dead then it should be enforced for everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My issue is reciprocity : If it is legal for the government to " peer into " my private data they should not be allowed to take umberage if I peer into theirs .
( note : this is a joke do not put me in jail ) If privacy is dead it should be dead for * everyone * .If privacy is not dead then it should be enforced for everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My issue is reciprocity: If it is legal for the government to "peer into" my private data they should not be allowed to take umberage if I peer into theirs.
(note: this is a joke do not put me in jail)If privacy is dead it should be dead for *everyone*.If privacy is not dead then it should be enforced for everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30821768</id>
	<title>Donate to the EFF</title>
	<author>Blackbrain</author>
	<datestamp>1263927840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is exactly why I donate to the <a href="http://www.eff.org/" title="eff.org" rel="nofollow"> Electronic Frontier Foundation</a> [eff.org] every year. Until these rights are tested for the 'new' electronic medium in a court of law, we need a lobby group dedicated to securing them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly why I donate to the Electronic Frontier Foundation [ eff.org ] every year .
Until these rights are tested for the 'new ' electronic medium in a court of law , we need a lobby group dedicated to securing them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly why I donate to the  Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org] every year.
Until these rights are tested for the 'new' electronic medium in a court of law, we need a lobby group dedicated to securing them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818562</id>
	<title>Uh not so fast.</title>
	<author>Geofferic</author>
	<datestamp>1263912840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This post starts with a false statement.  4th amendment rights are not well settled.  They've been challenged and altered repeatedly within the last decade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This post starts with a false statement .
4th amendment rights are not well settled .
They 've been challenged and altered repeatedly within the last decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post starts with a false statement.
4th amendment rights are not well settled.
They've been challenged and altered repeatedly within the last decade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30821758</id>
	<title>Re:US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263927780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Though the laptop may not be a threat to flight safety for US international flights, the data on may be an illegal export or import. If you provide appropriate export licenses for your laptop and its contained data, then that may be a different matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Though the laptop may not be a threat to flight safety for US international flights , the data on may be an illegal export or import .
If you provide appropriate export licenses for your laptop and its contained data , then that may be a different matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though the laptop may not be a threat to flight safety for US international flights, the data on may be an illegal export or import.
If you provide appropriate export licenses for your laptop and its contained data, then that may be a different matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818434</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820344</id>
	<title>The Cloud</title>
	<author>Stooshie</author>
	<datestamp>1263921540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If an American citizen has data stored on "the cloud" (be it email, documents, images, videos). Not all of that data is necessarily stored in the U.S. In fact, the citizen may have a video on the cloud that is split up and stored across the cloud in different countries. How does that fit with the 4th amendment. If their data is stored in another country, I'm not sure the U.S. could get that info without permission of another government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If an American citizen has data stored on " the cloud " ( be it email , documents , images , videos ) .
Not all of that data is necessarily stored in the U.S. In fact , the citizen may have a video on the cloud that is split up and stored across the cloud in different countries .
How does that fit with the 4th amendment .
If their data is stored in another country , I 'm not sure the U.S. could get that info without permission of another government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If an American citizen has data stored on "the cloud" (be it email, documents, images, videos).
Not all of that data is necessarily stored in the U.S. In fact, the citizen may have a video on the cloud that is split up and stored across the cloud in different countries.
How does that fit with the 4th amendment.
If their data is stored in another country, I'm not sure the U.S. could get that info without permission of another government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818332</id>
	<title>Re:US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>Calinous</author>
	<datestamp>1263910620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you are a foreign citizen, searching laptops, personal electronic devices and so on is just a prerequisite for entering the country (if you don't want your laptops to be searched, you are free to leave, but if you want to enter we need to search your laptop).<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I don't know how this can be related to US citizens (as a country should not be/is not allowed to refuse entry to its citizens)</p><p>Remember that searching personal effects is rarely done, but entirely normal in border posts</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you are a foreign citizen , searching laptops , personal electronic devices and so on is just a prerequisite for entering the country ( if you do n't want your laptops to be searched , you are free to leave , but if you want to enter we need to search your laptop ) .
      I do n't know how this can be related to US citizens ( as a country should not be/is not allowed to refuse entry to its citizens ) Remember that searching personal effects is rarely done , but entirely normal in border posts</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you are a foreign citizen, searching laptops, personal electronic devices and so on is just a prerequisite for entering the country (if you don't want your laptops to be searched, you are free to leave, but if you want to enter we need to search your laptop).
      I don't know how this can be related to US citizens (as a country should not be/is not allowed to refuse entry to its citizens)Remember that searching personal effects is rarely done, but entirely normal in border posts</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819528</id>
	<title>Out of Control Supremes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263918240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing is "well settled" with the current Supreme Court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing is " well settled " with the current Supreme Court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing is "well settled" with the current Supreme Court.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819080</id>
	<title>Clueless Gov't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263916020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our gov't is totally clueless when it comes to technology.  We need to get rid of these Luddites and take over.  Long Live the Technocracy!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our gov't is totally clueless when it comes to technology .
We need to get rid of these Luddites and take over .
Long Live the Technocracy ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our gov't is totally clueless when it comes to technology.
We need to get rid of these Luddites and take over.
Long Live the Technocracy!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30829450</id>
	<title>Have you heard of George W. Bush</title>
	<author>twoHats</author>
	<datestamp>1263980400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>4th Amendment to the Constitution - hahahahahahahahahaa

I had a whole lot more hahas but the censor bot said - "oh no you don't..."  Oh well - so much for attempting humor as a way of salving my broken heart...</htmltext>
<tokenext>4th Amendment to the Constitution - hahahahahahahahahaa I had a whole lot more hahas but the censor bot said - " oh no you do n't... " Oh well - so much for attempting humor as a way of salving my broken heart.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>4th Amendment to the Constitution - hahahahahahahahahaa

I had a whole lot more hahas but the censor bot said - "oh no you don't..."  Oh well - so much for attempting humor as a way of salving my broken heart...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818784</id>
	<title>Stop insult people's intelligence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263914340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A bit offtopic but I think it is important for lawmakers : stop doing analogies. Cryptography does not work like a lock or like an opaque case, owning cryptographic keys does not make you the landlord of anything. Cryptography works by taking a clear message and a key and mix them in a way that produces a seemingly random information but that can be made sense of thanks to the decoding key and the decoding algorithm. It is not that hard to understand. It requires 30 secondes of focus to understand and twenty minutes of thinking about and around, and you have understood the basis of crypto.<br> <br>
Dear lawmakers, please make laws about cryptography, not about analogies of cryptography if you don't want me to just be an analogy of a law abiding citizen. <br> <br>
Thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A bit offtopic but I think it is important for lawmakers : stop doing analogies .
Cryptography does not work like a lock or like an opaque case , owning cryptographic keys does not make you the landlord of anything .
Cryptography works by taking a clear message and a key and mix them in a way that produces a seemingly random information but that can be made sense of thanks to the decoding key and the decoding algorithm .
It is not that hard to understand .
It requires 30 secondes of focus to understand and twenty minutes of thinking about and around , and you have understood the basis of crypto .
Dear lawmakers , please make laws about cryptography , not about analogies of cryptography if you do n't want me to just be an analogy of a law abiding citizen .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A bit offtopic but I think it is important for lawmakers : stop doing analogies.
Cryptography does not work like a lock or like an opaque case, owning cryptographic keys does not make you the landlord of anything.
Cryptography works by taking a clear message and a key and mix them in a way that produces a seemingly random information but that can be made sense of thanks to the decoding key and the decoding algorithm.
It is not that hard to understand.
It requires 30 secondes of focus to understand and twenty minutes of thinking about and around, and you have understood the basis of crypto.
Dear lawmakers, please make laws about cryptography, not about analogies of cryptography if you don't want me to just be an analogy of a law abiding citizen.
Thanks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30821920</id>
	<title>Re:Stop insult people's intelligence</title>
	<author>srleffler</author>
	<datestamp>1263928380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The analogies are important here, because this is a legal argument. Besides written laws, there are judicial decisions covering thinks like the privacy of an item in a locked briefcase, or of material stored on a landlord's premises. By making analogies to these things, the author is arguing that the principles in those judicial decisions should be applied to cloud storage as well. If that argument succeeds, it may not be necessary to make any new laws at all, just to correctly interpret the existing ones.

<p>IANAL, but I'm pretty sure from the wording that the "opaque case" idea is a specific reference to existing judicial opinions. It's an important principle, even for cryptography: it says that the government is not allowed to break your encryption merely because they can. By encrypting your data, you did more than just secure it, you also made it <em>private</em>, in the same way that an opaque container makes the contents private, even if the lock fails or can be broken or picked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The analogies are important here , because this is a legal argument .
Besides written laws , there are judicial decisions covering thinks like the privacy of an item in a locked briefcase , or of material stored on a landlord 's premises .
By making analogies to these things , the author is arguing that the principles in those judicial decisions should be applied to cloud storage as well .
If that argument succeeds , it may not be necessary to make any new laws at all , just to correctly interpret the existing ones .
IANAL , but I 'm pretty sure from the wording that the " opaque case " idea is a specific reference to existing judicial opinions .
It 's an important principle , even for cryptography : it says that the government is not allowed to break your encryption merely because they can .
By encrypting your data , you did more than just secure it , you also made it private , in the same way that an opaque container makes the contents private , even if the lock fails or can be broken or picked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The analogies are important here, because this is a legal argument.
Besides written laws, there are judicial decisions covering thinks like the privacy of an item in a locked briefcase, or of material stored on a landlord's premises.
By making analogies to these things, the author is arguing that the principles in those judicial decisions should be applied to cloud storage as well.
If that argument succeeds, it may not be necessary to make any new laws at all, just to correctly interpret the existing ones.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure from the wording that the "opaque case" idea is a specific reference to existing judicial opinions.
It's an important principle, even for cryptography: it says that the government is not allowed to break your encryption merely because they can.
By encrypting your data, you did more than just secure it, you also made it private, in the same way that an opaque container makes the contents private, even if the lock fails or can be broken or picked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818560</id>
	<title>Re:US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263912840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main reason the government is backing cloud computing is for this very reason.  They want more warrantless searches.  It's also why google is upset with Chinese.  Google wants everyone to believe cloud computing is safe and secure, it's not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main reason the government is backing cloud computing is for this very reason .
They want more warrantless searches .
It 's also why google is upset with Chinese .
Google wants everyone to believe cloud computing is safe and secure , it 's not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main reason the government is backing cloud computing is for this very reason.
They want more warrantless searches.
It's also why google is upset with Chinese.
Google wants everyone to believe cloud computing is safe and secure, it's not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30821194</id>
	<title>Re:Dumb idea anyhow.</title>
	<author>PTBarnum</author>
	<datestamp>1263925200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would anyone hand the keys to all their important data to an employee they don't personally know?  Why do you assume that your data will be perfectly safe as long as the people with access to it are direct employees rather than employees of a contractor?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would anyone hand the keys to all their important data to an employee they do n't personally know ?
Why do you assume that your data will be perfectly safe as long as the people with access to it are direct employees rather than employees of a contractor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would anyone hand the keys to all their important data to an employee they don't personally know?
Why do you assume that your data will be perfectly safe as long as the people with access to it are direct employees rather than employees of a contractor?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818328</id>
	<title>Security is NOT an issue with The Cloud.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263910620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait a minute. I'm a manager, and I've been reading a lot of case studies and watching a lot of webcasts about The Cloud. Based on all of this glorious marketing literature, I, as a manager, have absolutely no reason to doubt the safety of any data put in The Cloud.</p><p>The case studies all use words like "secure", "MD5", "RSS feeds" and "encryption" to describe the security of The Cloud. I don't know about you, but that sounds damn secure to me! Some Clouds even use SSL and HTTP. That's rock solid in my book.</p><p>And don't forget that you have to use Web Services to access The Cloud. Nothing is more secure than SOA and Web Services, with the exception of perhaps SaaS. But I think that Cloud Services 2.0 will combine the tiers into an MVC-compliant stack that uses SaaS to increase the security and partitioning of the data.</p><p>My main concern isn't with the security of The Cloud, but rather with getting my Indian team to learn all about it so we can deploy some first-generation The Cloud applications and Web Services to provide the ultimate platform upon which we can layer our business intelligence and reporting, because there are still a few verticals that we need to leverage before we can move to The Cloud 2.0.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait a minute .
I 'm a manager , and I 've been reading a lot of case studies and watching a lot of webcasts about The Cloud .
Based on all of this glorious marketing literature , I , as a manager , have absolutely no reason to doubt the safety of any data put in The Cloud.The case studies all use words like " secure " , " MD5 " , " RSS feeds " and " encryption " to describe the security of The Cloud .
I do n't know about you , but that sounds damn secure to me !
Some Clouds even use SSL and HTTP .
That 's rock solid in my book.And do n't forget that you have to use Web Services to access The Cloud .
Nothing is more secure than SOA and Web Services , with the exception of perhaps SaaS .
But I think that Cloud Services 2.0 will combine the tiers into an MVC-compliant stack that uses SaaS to increase the security and partitioning of the data.My main concern is n't with the security of The Cloud , but rather with getting my Indian team to learn all about it so we can deploy some first-generation The Cloud applications and Web Services to provide the ultimate platform upon which we can layer our business intelligence and reporting , because there are still a few verticals that we need to leverage before we can move to The Cloud 2.0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait a minute.
I'm a manager, and I've been reading a lot of case studies and watching a lot of webcasts about The Cloud.
Based on all of this glorious marketing literature, I, as a manager, have absolutely no reason to doubt the safety of any data put in The Cloud.The case studies all use words like "secure", "MD5", "RSS feeds" and "encryption" to describe the security of The Cloud.
I don't know about you, but that sounds damn secure to me!
Some Clouds even use SSL and HTTP.
That's rock solid in my book.And don't forget that you have to use Web Services to access The Cloud.
Nothing is more secure than SOA and Web Services, with the exception of perhaps SaaS.
But I think that Cloud Services 2.0 will combine the tiers into an MVC-compliant stack that uses SaaS to increase the security and partitioning of the data.My main concern isn't with the security of The Cloud, but rather with getting my Indian team to learn all about it so we can deploy some first-generation The Cloud applications and Web Services to provide the ultimate platform upon which we can layer our business intelligence and reporting, because there are still a few verticals that we need to leverage before we can move to The Cloud 2.0.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819296</id>
	<title>Re:Hosting countries</title>
	<author>tmlwoodson</author>
	<datestamp>1263917100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All your base are belong to us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All your base are belong to us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All your base are belong to us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818540</id>
	<title>Dumb idea anyhow.</title>
	<author>lancejjj</author>
	<datestamp>1263912720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[T]he service provider has a copy of the keys to a user's cloud 'storage unit'</p></div><p>Why the hell would I want to give a copy of the keys to the service provider?</p><p>Just because you use the cloud to store bits of data doesn't mean that you'd want to store unencrypted bits of data there.  Those that do risk distribution of your unencrypted data via a multitude of channels, including but certainly not limited to:</p><ul> <li>Cloud configuration errors</li><li>Service Policy changes</li><li>Service Security failures</li><li>Data theft by administrators</li><li>Service scanning and reselling of your data</li></ul><p>Why would anyone hand the keys to all their important data to a 3rd party that they don't personally know?  Just because they're under a contract with that 3rd party?  A contract drawn up exclusively by that 3rd party?  With clauses designed to exclusively to protect that 3rd party?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ T ] he service provider has a copy of the keys to a user 's cloud 'storage unit'Why the hell would I want to give a copy of the keys to the service provider ? Just because you use the cloud to store bits of data does n't mean that you 'd want to store unencrypted bits of data there .
Those that do risk distribution of your unencrypted data via a multitude of channels , including but certainly not limited to : Cloud configuration errorsService Policy changesService Security failuresData theft by administratorsService scanning and reselling of your dataWhy would anyone hand the keys to all their important data to a 3rd party that they do n't personally know ?
Just because they 're under a contract with that 3rd party ?
A contract drawn up exclusively by that 3rd party ?
With clauses designed to exclusively to protect that 3rd party ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[T]he service provider has a copy of the keys to a user's cloud 'storage unit'Why the hell would I want to give a copy of the keys to the service provider?Just because you use the cloud to store bits of data doesn't mean that you'd want to store unencrypted bits of data there.
Those that do risk distribution of your unencrypted data via a multitude of channels, including but certainly not limited to: Cloud configuration errorsService Policy changesService Security failuresData theft by administratorsService scanning and reselling of your dataWhy would anyone hand the keys to all their important data to a 3rd party that they don't personally know?
Just because they're under a contract with that 3rd party?
A contract drawn up exclusively by that 3rd party?
With clauses designed to exclusively to protect that 3rd party?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819002</id>
	<title>Re:US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>catmistake</author>
	<datestamp>1263915660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know how this can be related to US citizens</p></div><p>You don't say it explicitly, but I get the feeling that you believe the Bill of Rights and the other rights enumerated in the US Constitution only applies to US Citizens. If so, I urge you and others that believe this to take a closer look at the document. The Founders were extrememly careful and deliberate. If it were the case surely the Preamble would begin "We the <i>citizens</i>...." It does not.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how this can be related to US citizensYou do n't say it explicitly , but I get the feeling that you believe the Bill of Rights and the other rights enumerated in the US Constitution only applies to US Citizens .
If so , I urge you and others that believe this to take a closer look at the document .
The Founders were extrememly careful and deliberate .
If it were the case surely the Preamble would begin " We the citizens.... " It does not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how this can be related to US citizensYou don't say it explicitly, but I get the feeling that you believe the Bill of Rights and the other rights enumerated in the US Constitution only applies to US Citizens.
If so, I urge you and others that believe this to take a closer look at the document.
The Founders were extrememly careful and deliberate.
If it were the case surely the Preamble would begin "We the citizens...." It does not.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30823052</id>
	<title>Wuala</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263932160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That why I use wuala (wuala.com), my files are encrypted BEFORE they are given to the server, that way even the people storing my information can't access my files.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That why I use wuala ( wuala.com ) , my files are encrypted BEFORE they are given to the server , that way even the people storing my information ca n't access my files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That why I use wuala (wuala.com), my files are encrypted BEFORE they are given to the server, that way even the people storing my information can't access my files.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819860</id>
	<title>Re:Hosting countries</title>
	<author>bschorr</author>
	<datestamp>1263919680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, and that is exactly what I consider to be one of the biggest issues of the Cloud.  The Terms of Service of many, if not most, Cloud Computing/SaaS providers explicitly allow them to outsource their storage (or either primary data or backups or both) to unnamed 3rd parties.  Where are these mysterious 3rd parties located?<br><br>Like all businesses keeping costs down helps them keep profits up and since Cloud Computing IS largely sold as a low-cost solution (we can discuss price vs. cost later) we know that keeping costs low is imperative.  As we know the Internet crosses International borders (most of them anyhow) effortlessly.  Is there any reason to think that a Cloud/SaaS provider wouldn't gladly outsource their storage to a cut-rate data center in another country?  Maybe even a country that isn't very friendly to the U.S.?<br><br>The 4th Amendment means nothing in Malaysia or China or Venezuela or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...you get the idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , and that is exactly what I consider to be one of the biggest issues of the Cloud .
The Terms of Service of many , if not most , Cloud Computing/SaaS providers explicitly allow them to outsource their storage ( or either primary data or backups or both ) to unnamed 3rd parties .
Where are these mysterious 3rd parties located ? Like all businesses keeping costs down helps them keep profits up and since Cloud Computing IS largely sold as a low-cost solution ( we can discuss price vs. cost later ) we know that keeping costs low is imperative .
As we know the Internet crosses International borders ( most of them anyhow ) effortlessly .
Is there any reason to think that a Cloud/SaaS provider would n't gladly outsource their storage to a cut-rate data center in another country ?
Maybe even a country that is n't very friendly to the U.S. ? The 4th Amendment means nothing in Malaysia or China or Venezuela or ...you get the idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, and that is exactly what I consider to be one of the biggest issues of the Cloud.
The Terms of Service of many, if not most, Cloud Computing/SaaS providers explicitly allow them to outsource their storage (or either primary data or backups or both) to unnamed 3rd parties.
Where are these mysterious 3rd parties located?Like all businesses keeping costs down helps them keep profits up and since Cloud Computing IS largely sold as a low-cost solution (we can discuss price vs. cost later) we know that keeping costs low is imperative.
As we know the Internet crosses International borders (most of them anyhow) effortlessly.
Is there any reason to think that a Cloud/SaaS provider wouldn't gladly outsource their storage to a cut-rate data center in another country?
Maybe even a country that isn't very friendly to the U.S.?The 4th Amendment means nothing in Malaysia or China or Venezuela or ...you get the idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819052</id>
	<title>Re:US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1263915780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Fourth Amendment has long been held to apply to all people under US jurisdiction, whether citizens or not.  However, as stated by another reply to your post, the Supreme Court has ruled, rightly or wrongly, that it does not apply to border searches.  So, by current law, the government is within its rights to search you at the border regardless of your citizenship status.
<br> <br>
It's a fallacy to state that the rights outlined in the Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights) are granted only to citizens.  The Constitution makes distinctions between "citizens" and "persons" all over the place.  When the Constitution refers to "persons" or "people" (as it does in the fourth amendment), it is referring to ALL people, citizen or not.  The founders believed in the concept of inalienable rights, which are rights granted to all people (or at least all white males in their day) by their Creator.  The purpose of enumerating some of the more important of those rights in the Constitution was not to grant them, but to prevent the government from infringing on them.
<br> <br>
How much the government has infringed on them anyway is, of course, a matter of much debate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Fourth Amendment has long been held to apply to all people under US jurisdiction , whether citizens or not .
However , as stated by another reply to your post , the Supreme Court has ruled , rightly or wrongly , that it does not apply to border searches .
So , by current law , the government is within its rights to search you at the border regardless of your citizenship status .
It 's a fallacy to state that the rights outlined in the Constitution ( particularly the Bill of Rights ) are granted only to citizens .
The Constitution makes distinctions between " citizens " and " persons " all over the place .
When the Constitution refers to " persons " or " people " ( as it does in the fourth amendment ) , it is referring to ALL people , citizen or not .
The founders believed in the concept of inalienable rights , which are rights granted to all people ( or at least all white males in their day ) by their Creator .
The purpose of enumerating some of the more important of those rights in the Constitution was not to grant them , but to prevent the government from infringing on them .
How much the government has infringed on them anyway is , of course , a matter of much debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Fourth Amendment has long been held to apply to all people under US jurisdiction, whether citizens or not.
However, as stated by another reply to your post, the Supreme Court has ruled, rightly or wrongly, that it does not apply to border searches.
So, by current law, the government is within its rights to search you at the border regardless of your citizenship status.
It's a fallacy to state that the rights outlined in the Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights) are granted only to citizens.
The Constitution makes distinctions between "citizens" and "persons" all over the place.
When the Constitution refers to "persons" or "people" (as it does in the fourth amendment), it is referring to ALL people, citizen or not.
The founders believed in the concept of inalienable rights, which are rights granted to all people (or at least all white males in their day) by their Creator.
The purpose of enumerating some of the more important of those rights in the Constitution was not to grant them, but to prevent the government from infringing on them.
How much the government has infringed on them anyway is, of course, a matter of much debate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818442</id>
	<title>Re:US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>alen</author>
	<datestamp>1263911940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>being searched at any border crossing in almost any country is normal. if you want to enter a country you have to agree to a search if they ask. same applies in the free loving europe as well. when i was in the military and we would return to the US after a deployment, they would take every 10th person and tear apart their stuff looking for contraband.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>being searched at any border crossing in almost any country is normal .
if you want to enter a country you have to agree to a search if they ask .
same applies in the free loving europe as well .
when i was in the military and we would return to the US after a deployment , they would take every 10th person and tear apart their stuff looking for contraband .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>being searched at any border crossing in almost any country is normal.
if you want to enter a country you have to agree to a search if they ask.
same applies in the free loving europe as well.
when i was in the military and we would return to the US after a deployment, they would take every 10th person and tear apart their stuff looking for contraband.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820904</id>
	<title>Re:Hosting countries</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1263924060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you actually run the numbers on a service like AWS?  I did, for my hosting account (dedicated Linux hosting).  What I pay $70/month for now would cost me nearly that much in just CPU costs alone.<br><br>EC2 (Small) * 720h == $61.2.<br><br>That's not even factoring in bandwidth or storage (I currently have 80GB of storage and 500GB of monthly bandwidth), which add another $16 bucks to the total based on my current actual usage.<br><br>Now add in IO request charges, and a high-traffic website could easily outpace dedicated hosting.<br><br>So called cloud services offer you an easy way to provision customized systems, that's about it, IMHO.<br><br>I'd rather contract with a decent server provisioner and have some easy way of getting my systems installed and running.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you actually run the numbers on a service like AWS ?
I did , for my hosting account ( dedicated Linux hosting ) .
What I pay $ 70/month for now would cost me nearly that much in just CPU costs alone.EC2 ( Small ) * 720h = = $ 61.2.That 's not even factoring in bandwidth or storage ( I currently have 80GB of storage and 500GB of monthly bandwidth ) , which add another $ 16 bucks to the total based on my current actual usage.Now add in IO request charges , and a high-traffic website could easily outpace dedicated hosting.So called cloud services offer you an easy way to provision customized systems , that 's about it , IMHO.I 'd rather contract with a decent server provisioner and have some easy way of getting my systems installed and running .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you actually run the numbers on a service like AWS?
I did, for my hosting account (dedicated Linux hosting).
What I pay $70/month for now would cost me nearly that much in just CPU costs alone.EC2 (Small) * 720h == $61.2.That's not even factoring in bandwidth or storage (I currently have 80GB of storage and 500GB of monthly bandwidth), which add another $16 bucks to the total based on my current actual usage.Now add in IO request charges, and a high-traffic website could easily outpace dedicated hosting.So called cloud services offer you an easy way to provision customized systems, that's about it, IMHO.I'd rather contract with a decent server provisioner and have some easy way of getting my systems installed and running.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818970</id>
	<title>Time to change the test?</title>
	<author>wrencherd</author>
	<datestamp>1263915540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As far as US law is concerned in this regard, the 4th Amendment is not so much the problem as is the 40 yr old "expectation of privacy" test.</p><p>Perhaps it's time to change that one and bring it up to date particularly in light of the fact that it doesn't seem to apply to very much any longer.</p><p>The larger problem--as pointed out above by petes\_PoV--is the international jurisdiction issue; "where" is the data cloud?</p><p>The answer to that question determines which laws--including any related "third party doctrines"--will apply.</p><p>Will google respect non-US law when it comes to turning over cloud data to non-US gov't agents?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As far as US law is concerned in this regard , the 4th Amendment is not so much the problem as is the 40 yr old " expectation of privacy " test.Perhaps it 's time to change that one and bring it up to date particularly in light of the fact that it does n't seem to apply to very much any longer.The larger problem--as pointed out above by petes \ _PoV--is the international jurisdiction issue ; " where " is the data cloud ? The answer to that question determines which laws--including any related " third party doctrines " --will apply.Will google respect non-US law when it comes to turning over cloud data to non-US gov't agents ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As far as US law is concerned in this regard, the 4th Amendment is not so much the problem as is the 40 yr old "expectation of privacy" test.Perhaps it's time to change that one and bring it up to date particularly in light of the fact that it doesn't seem to apply to very much any longer.The larger problem--as pointed out above by petes\_PoV--is the international jurisdiction issue; "where" is the data cloud?The answer to that question determines which laws--including any related "third party doctrines"--will apply.Will google respect non-US law when it comes to turning over cloud data to non-US gov't agents?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819388</id>
	<title>Encrypt/Decrypt at the client</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1263917580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ideally, encrypted data in the cloud would be decrypted at the user's computer, much like PGP-enabled email.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ideally , encrypted data in the cloud would be decrypted at the user 's computer , much like PGP-enabled email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ideally, encrypted data in the cloud would be decrypted at the user's computer, much like PGP-enabled email.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819650</id>
	<title>Re:US Border Laptop Searches</title>
	<author>fredrik\_haard</author>
	<datestamp>1263918840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Shouldn't the same privacy logic apply even more to your laptops and personal electronic devices when you're entering U.S. borders?

Having these people search your hard drive is an invasion of privacy.</p></div><p>What is it that they think this policy stops, anyway?
If I wanted to import illegal electrons into the US, I'd just put them on a nice server right here in terrorist Europe, go to the US with a clean OS installation, and pull it encrypted over the intertubes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't the same privacy logic apply even more to your laptops and personal electronic devices when you 're entering U.S. borders ? Having these people search your hard drive is an invasion of privacy.What is it that they think this policy stops , anyway ?
If I wanted to import illegal electrons into the US , I 'd just put them on a nice server right here in terrorist Europe , go to the US with a clean OS installation , and pull it encrypted over the intertubes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't the same privacy logic apply even more to your laptops and personal electronic devices when you're entering U.S. borders?

Having these people search your hard drive is an invasion of privacy.What is it that they think this policy stops, anyway?
If I wanted to import illegal electrons into the US, I'd just put them on a nice server right here in terrorist Europe, go to the US with a clean OS installation, and pull it encrypted over the intertubes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818704</id>
	<title>This was addressed by the Stored Communications Ac</title>
	<author>Tobor the Eighth Man</author>
	<datestamp>1263913860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>t, way back in 1986.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored\_Communications\_Act</p><p>"With respect to the government&rsquo;s ability to compel disclosure, the most significant distinction made by the SCA is between communications held in electronic communications services, which require a search warrant and probable cause, and those in remote computing services, which require only a subpoena or court order, with prior notice. This lower level of protection is essentially the same as would be provided by the Fourth Amendment&mdash;or potentially less, since notice can be delayed indefinitely in 90-day increments."</p><p>So no warrant is needed, just subpoena and notice. As the wiki article points out, this is essentially the "third party doctrine," which already exists for the Fourth Amendment. The third party doctrine basically states that if you reveal information to a third party, you can't make a fourth amendment claim against that info.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>t , way back in 1986.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored \ _Communications \ _Act " With respect to the government    s ability to compel disclosure , the most significant distinction made by the SCA is between communications held in electronic communications services , which require a search warrant and probable cause , and those in remote computing services , which require only a subpoena or court order , with prior notice .
This lower level of protection is essentially the same as would be provided by the Fourth Amendment    or potentially less , since notice can be delayed indefinitely in 90-day increments .
" So no warrant is needed , just subpoena and notice .
As the wiki article points out , this is essentially the " third party doctrine , " which already exists for the Fourth Amendment .
The third party doctrine basically states that if you reveal information to a third party , you ca n't make a fourth amendment claim against that info .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>t, way back in 1986.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stored\_Communications\_Act"With respect to the government’s ability to compel disclosure, the most significant distinction made by the SCA is between communications held in electronic communications services, which require a search warrant and probable cause, and those in remote computing services, which require only a subpoena or court order, with prior notice.
This lower level of protection is essentially the same as would be provided by the Fourth Amendment—or potentially less, since notice can be delayed indefinitely in 90-day increments.
"So no warrant is needed, just subpoena and notice.
As the wiki article points out, this is essentially the "third party doctrine," which already exists for the Fourth Amendment.
The third party doctrine basically states that if you reveal information to a third party, you can't make a fourth amendment claim against that info.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819328</id>
	<title>Shouldn't the Government need a reason?</title>
	<author>flaptrap</author>
	<datestamp>1263917280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In order for a search to be 'reasonable' I think the Amendment should be interpreted to require a good reason to have a search.  It says, 'probable cause', after all, and requires a sworn affidavit.</p><p>It is not good enough just because the Government can tax the people to raise funds and use those funds to spy on everything they do.  Then everyone is a suspect, and since nobody is perfect, everyone is a criminal.</p><p>Sorry, I spend my time trying to do good for the world.  I do not feel like a criminal and deeply resent being treated like one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In order for a search to be 'reasonable ' I think the Amendment should be interpreted to require a good reason to have a search .
It says , 'probable cause ' , after all , and requires a sworn affidavit.It is not good enough just because the Government can tax the people to raise funds and use those funds to spy on everything they do .
Then everyone is a suspect , and since nobody is perfect , everyone is a criminal.Sorry , I spend my time trying to do good for the world .
I do not feel like a criminal and deeply resent being treated like one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order for a search to be 'reasonable' I think the Amendment should be interpreted to require a good reason to have a search.
It says, 'probable cause', after all, and requires a sworn affidavit.It is not good enough just because the Government can tax the people to raise funds and use those funds to spy on everything they do.
Then everyone is a suspect, and since nobody is perfect, everyone is a criminal.Sorry, I spend my time trying to do good for the world.
I do not feel like a criminal and deeply resent being treated like one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819486</id>
	<title>Two intermixed issues</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1263918120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First issue - 4th Amendment protections in the US - what search and seizure protections do you have. Despite the so-called newness of the cloud (some of us remember big iron - dumb terminal models from way back) it is another way to electronically transmit information - so it would seem that all the existing wiretap laws would apply. Just like they can tap your phone they can intercept other electronic transmission, with a proper warrant.  To the extent such information is publicly available (such as via a Google search), they should be able to get it without w warrant.  if you fail to set security to prevent others from seeing it you, IMHO, have no expectation of privacy. To expand on the briefcase example, you may have an expectation of privacy for stuff in the briefcase, but the law can watch and videotape you putting something in in Starbucks.</p><p>The other issue, and to me the more important one, is collateral damage.  As the referenced article pointed out, the physical search and seizure impacted a lot of innocent third parties.  I doubt a court would say "you can't do a seizure because you'll grab other peoples stuff," but might say "you can only look at the target's info."  So, rather tahn worry about the 4th companies should ensure their data centers have adequate disaster recovery plans to deal with such situations (along with fires, power outages, etc.)  If a data center can't recover from the loss of some servers they have bigger problems than privacy rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First issue - 4th Amendment protections in the US - what search and seizure protections do you have .
Despite the so-called newness of the cloud ( some of us remember big iron - dumb terminal models from way back ) it is another way to electronically transmit information - so it would seem that all the existing wiretap laws would apply .
Just like they can tap your phone they can intercept other electronic transmission , with a proper warrant .
To the extent such information is publicly available ( such as via a Google search ) , they should be able to get it without w warrant .
if you fail to set security to prevent others from seeing it you , IMHO , have no expectation of privacy .
To expand on the briefcase example , you may have an expectation of privacy for stuff in the briefcase , but the law can watch and videotape you putting something in in Starbucks.The other issue , and to me the more important one , is collateral damage .
As the referenced article pointed out , the physical search and seizure impacted a lot of innocent third parties .
I doubt a court would say " you ca n't do a seizure because you 'll grab other peoples stuff , " but might say " you can only look at the target 's info .
" So , rather tahn worry about the 4th companies should ensure their data centers have adequate disaster recovery plans to deal with such situations ( along with fires , power outages , etc .
) If a data center ca n't recover from the loss of some servers they have bigger problems than privacy rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First issue - 4th Amendment protections in the US - what search and seizure protections do you have.
Despite the so-called newness of the cloud (some of us remember big iron - dumb terminal models from way back) it is another way to electronically transmit information - so it would seem that all the existing wiretap laws would apply.
Just like they can tap your phone they can intercept other electronic transmission, with a proper warrant.
To the extent such information is publicly available (such as via a Google search), they should be able to get it without w warrant.
if you fail to set security to prevent others from seeing it you, IMHO, have no expectation of privacy.
To expand on the briefcase example, you may have an expectation of privacy for stuff in the briefcase, but the law can watch and videotape you putting something in in Starbucks.The other issue, and to me the more important one, is collateral damage.
As the referenced article pointed out, the physical search and seizure impacted a lot of innocent third parties.
I doubt a court would say "you can't do a seizure because you'll grab other peoples stuff," but might say "you can only look at the target's info.
"  So, rather tahn worry about the 4th companies should ensure their data centers have adequate disaster recovery plans to deal with such situations (along with fires, power outages, etc.
)  If a data center can't recover from the loss of some servers they have bigger problems than privacy rights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30821198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818384
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30821194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30824764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30822672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30821970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30821758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30822528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30825780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30821920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_0337249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_0337249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30822672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30824764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_0337249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820408
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_0337249.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30821970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_0337249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818702
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818724
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30821198
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_0337249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_0337249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30825780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818384
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819840
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818434
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818546
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30821758
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819634
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30822528
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819002
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820888
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819052
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_0337249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_0337249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_0337249.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818540
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30821194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819974
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_0337249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_0337249.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_0337249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_0337249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30821920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30820640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_0337249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_0337249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818516
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_0337249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_0337249.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30818536
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_0337249.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_0337249.30819204
</commentlist>
</conversation>
