<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_19_2138215</id>
	<title>Microsoft To Delete Bing IP Data After 6 Months</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1263894900000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>adeelarshad82 writes <i>"Bowing to pressure from the EU, Microsoft said it would <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/technology/companies/20search.html">discard all data collected via its Bing search engine</a> after six months. (<a href="http://microsoftontheissues.com/cs/blogs/mscorp/archive/2010/01/18/microsoft-advances-search-privacy-with-bing.aspx">Microsoft's announcement</a> contains a timeline for what data gets anonymized or deleted when.) Until now, the software giant has retained the data for 18 months. Over the past two years, however, Internet companies such as Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google have made efforts to reduce the amount of time that information is stored. Microsoft's policies will remain the same, but now, the company will delete the IP address and other info after six months. Back in December 2008, Microsoft said it would <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2336597,00.asp">reduce its retention time</a> to six months, but only if its rivals followed suit. At the time, Yahoo anonymized its data after 13 months, and Google did the same after 9 months. A week later, Yahoo cut that time down to three months, but Google said its decisions are <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2337078,00.asp">not conditioned on what competitors do</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>adeelarshad82 writes " Bowing to pressure from the EU , Microsoft said it would discard all data collected via its Bing search engine after six months .
( Microsoft 's announcement contains a timeline for what data gets anonymized or deleted when .
) Until now , the software giant has retained the data for 18 months .
Over the past two years , however , Internet companies such as Microsoft , Yahoo , and Google have made efforts to reduce the amount of time that information is stored .
Microsoft 's policies will remain the same , but now , the company will delete the IP address and other info after six months .
Back in December 2008 , Microsoft said it would reduce its retention time to six months , but only if its rivals followed suit .
At the time , Yahoo anonymized its data after 13 months , and Google did the same after 9 months .
A week later , Yahoo cut that time down to three months , but Google said its decisions are not conditioned on what competitors do .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>adeelarshad82 writes "Bowing to pressure from the EU, Microsoft said it would discard all data collected via its Bing search engine after six months.
(Microsoft's announcement contains a timeline for what data gets anonymized or deleted when.
) Until now, the software giant has retained the data for 18 months.
Over the past two years, however, Internet companies such as Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google have made efforts to reduce the amount of time that information is stored.
Microsoft's policies will remain the same, but now, the company will delete the IP address and other info after six months.
Back in December 2008, Microsoft said it would reduce its retention time to six months, but only if its rivals followed suit.
At the time, Yahoo anonymized its data after 13 months, and Google did the same after 9 months.
A week later, Yahoo cut that time down to three months, but Google said its decisions are not conditioned on what competitors do.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825874</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1263901620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>We want privacy - give it to us.</p></div><p>Who is this we you speak of?</p></div><p>Obviously we can't tell you that. It's private!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We want privacy - give it to us.Who is this we you speak of ? Obviously we ca n't tell you that .
It 's private !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We want privacy - give it to us.Who is this we you speak of?Obviously we can't tell you that.
It's private!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825864</id>
	<title>Bing dishonours my name.</title>
	<author>enter to exit</author>
	<datestamp>1263901620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I search my name in Bing and get irrelevant results. (right first name wrong surname or the other way around). <br>

Searching my name in quotation marks finds people who are long dead or listed as award recipients and have never been on the internet since.<br>
It thinks i live in the UK (I live in Australia). <br>

I search in google and  i get my facebook twitter and linkedin account as the first three results with or without quotation marks plus other relevent stuff. google wins.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I search my name in Bing and get irrelevant results .
( right first name wrong surname or the other way around ) .
Searching my name in quotation marks finds people who are long dead or listed as award recipients and have never been on the internet since .
It thinks i live in the UK ( I live in Australia ) .
I search in google and i get my facebook twitter and linkedin account as the first three results with or without quotation marks plus other relevent stuff .
google wins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I search my name in Bing and get irrelevant results.
(right first name wrong surname or the other way around).
Searching my name in quotation marks finds people who are long dead or listed as award recipients and have never been on the internet since.
It thinks i live in the UK (I live in Australia).
I search in google and  i get my facebook twitter and linkedin account as the first three results with or without quotation marks plus other relevent stuff.
google wins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825452</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263899760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One valid reason for privacy is to protect you from a form of harassment, stereotyping or prejudice.</p><p>For example, I have views that are unpopular and some people hate with a burning passion. I still find it valuable to state those and to discuss them, because I think they are valuable. But if someone could systematize my views and track me, they would find life much more easy. Rather than seeing 50 posts that piss them off and threaten to punch holes in the story they tell, they could instead reply to everyone "This is X living at X who is a moron" and lobby my employer to sack me.</p><p>The Google CEO totally misses this point. Because it's a "free society", people have the capacity to "individually punish" someone a little, collectively adding up to a lot, which means the rapid quashing of unpopular views if there is no privacy. This is based on the concept that public life really has the form of an "information war" where everyone is out to convince other people by coming together with followers and presenting your arguments and criticising the others, and those with unpopular views really have to live a form of "guerilla warfare". No privacy would mean either the end to or an extreme hardening of all "information wars".</p><p>There would no longer be "part-time members of the resistance", you would have to choose which army to join in both thought, words and your entire life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One valid reason for privacy is to protect you from a form of harassment , stereotyping or prejudice.For example , I have views that are unpopular and some people hate with a burning passion .
I still find it valuable to state those and to discuss them , because I think they are valuable .
But if someone could systematize my views and track me , they would find life much more easy .
Rather than seeing 50 posts that piss them off and threaten to punch holes in the story they tell , they could instead reply to everyone " This is X living at X who is a moron " and lobby my employer to sack me.The Google CEO totally misses this point .
Because it 's a " free society " , people have the capacity to " individually punish " someone a little , collectively adding up to a lot , which means the rapid quashing of unpopular views if there is no privacy .
This is based on the concept that public life really has the form of an " information war " where everyone is out to convince other people by coming together with followers and presenting your arguments and criticising the others , and those with unpopular views really have to live a form of " guerilla warfare " .
No privacy would mean either the end to or an extreme hardening of all " information wars " .There would no longer be " part-time members of the resistance " , you would have to choose which army to join in both thought , words and your entire life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One valid reason for privacy is to protect you from a form of harassment, stereotyping or prejudice.For example, I have views that are unpopular and some people hate with a burning passion.
I still find it valuable to state those and to discuss them, because I think they are valuable.
But if someone could systematize my views and track me, they would find life much more easy.
Rather than seeing 50 posts that piss them off and threaten to punch holes in the story they tell, they could instead reply to everyone "This is X living at X who is a moron" and lobby my employer to sack me.The Google CEO totally misses this point.
Because it's a "free society", people have the capacity to "individually punish" someone a little, collectively adding up to a lot, which means the rapid quashing of unpopular views if there is no privacy.
This is based on the concept that public life really has the form of an "information war" where everyone is out to convince other people by coming together with followers and presenting your arguments and criticising the others, and those with unpopular views really have to live a form of "guerilla warfare".
No privacy would mean either the end to or an extreme hardening of all "information wars".There would no longer be "part-time members of the resistance", you would have to choose which army to join in both thought, words and your entire life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825270</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>mitchell\_pgh</author>
	<datestamp>1263899040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article: "Bowing to pressure from the EU"</p><p>I wouldn't say that Microsoft is exactly doing this by their own accord.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " Bowing to pressure from the EU " I would n't say that Microsoft is exactly doing this by their own accord .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article: "Bowing to pressure from the EU"I wouldn't say that Microsoft is exactly doing this by their own accord.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130</id>
	<title>Privacy</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1263898500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After Google's CEO's comments about <a href="http://slashdot.org/story/09/12/08/0127219/Google-CEO-Says-Privacy-Worries-Are-For-Wrongdoers" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">privacy is only wanted by wrongdoers</a> [slashdot.org] and their massive influence all over the internet, mobile phones and soon desktop I'm starting to think Bing might be better. Like the summary states, Google says its decisions "aren't conditioned on what competitors do" and they want to do what they want. Seems like they got huge and got piss in their head.</p><p>When credit is due, I have to give it. Bing is done correctly, and Google seems like the falling star it once was. We want privacy - give it to us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After Google 's CEO 's comments about privacy is only wanted by wrongdoers [ slashdot.org ] and their massive influence all over the internet , mobile phones and soon desktop I 'm starting to think Bing might be better .
Like the summary states , Google says its decisions " are n't conditioned on what competitors do " and they want to do what they want .
Seems like they got huge and got piss in their head.When credit is due , I have to give it .
Bing is done correctly , and Google seems like the falling star it once was .
We want privacy - give it to us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After Google's CEO's comments about privacy is only wanted by wrongdoers [slashdot.org] and their massive influence all over the internet, mobile phones and soon desktop I'm starting to think Bing might be better.
Like the summary states, Google says its decisions "aren't conditioned on what competitors do" and they want to do what they want.
Seems like they got huge and got piss in their head.When credit is due, I have to give it.
Bing is done correctly, and Google seems like the falling star it once was.
We want privacy - give it to us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825808</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1263901380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People fill that crap out trading their privacy for an increase in an arbitrary value in some shitty "app".</p></div><p>On the other hand, the fact that so many are doing it would seem to indicate that they see value for themselves in this.  However, this belief is founded on the assumption that people are aware of how their data is used in the first place; or that they think it's significant.  For most Internet users, neither is true.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People fill that crap out trading their privacy for an increase in an arbitrary value in some shitty " app " .On the other hand , the fact that so many are doing it would seem to indicate that they see value for themselves in this .
However , this belief is founded on the assumption that people are aware of how their data is used in the first place ; or that they think it 's significant .
For most Internet users , neither is true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People fill that crap out trading their privacy for an increase in an arbitrary value in some shitty "app".On the other hand, the fact that so many are doing it would seem to indicate that they see value for themselves in this.
However, this belief is founded on the assumption that people are aware of how their data is used in the first place; or that they think it's significant.
For most Internet users, neither is true.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826344</id>
	<title>Re:Glass half full?</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1263904200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, we're in the minority. Another decade or so and privacy as we understand it will be a baffling concept to almost everyone in the United States and probably most other places. We'll be considered, in the best case, quaint old geezers -- in the worst case, the most pernicious enemies of the state to ever exist, people who need to be eradicated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , we 're in the minority .
Another decade or so and privacy as we understand it will be a baffling concept to almost everyone in the United States and probably most other places .
We 'll be considered , in the best case , quaint old geezers -- in the worst case , the most pernicious enemies of the state to ever exist , people who need to be eradicated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, we're in the minority.
Another decade or so and privacy as we understand it will be a baffling concept to almost everyone in the United States and probably most other places.
We'll be considered, in the best case, quaint old geezers -- in the worst case, the most pernicious enemies of the state to ever exist, people who need to be eradicated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825284</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263899040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is increasingly scaring me. Eric Schmidt is the CEO of New America Foundation - a political think tank. Google's active involvement into politics reminds me of Khodorkovsky - Russian nouveau riche with greasily trail and political aspirations cut short by more ruthless political opponent.</p><p>It is unclear now what does Google have in mind, but it will have bad outcome either for us or for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is increasingly scaring me .
Eric Schmidt is the CEO of New America Foundation - a political think tank .
Google 's active involvement into politics reminds me of Khodorkovsky - Russian nouveau riche with greasily trail and political aspirations cut short by more ruthless political opponent.It is unclear now what does Google have in mind , but it will have bad outcome either for us or for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is increasingly scaring me.
Eric Schmidt is the CEO of New America Foundation - a political think tank.
Google's active involvement into politics reminds me of Khodorkovsky - Russian nouveau riche with greasily trail and political aspirations cut short by more ruthless political opponent.It is unclear now what does Google have in mind, but it will have bad outcome either for us or for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825844</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>causality</author>
	<datestamp>1263901500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>We want privacy - give it to us.</p></div><p>Who is this <b>we</b> you speak of? Your average internet user really doesn't seem to give a damn as long as they can get what they want quickly and easily. Just look at the success of some of these games on social networking sites. Like Mafia Wars for instance; basically nothing more than a database with a shitty HTML front end that offers no real game play or player interactions yet people eat it up, allowing companies like Zynga to scrap profile data or serve them "customer surveys" or "trail offers" and "free products"... People fill that crap out trading their privacy for an increase in an arbitrary value in some shitty "app".</p></div><p>One question seems to be largely unanswered:  of what value is months-old data, especially when many of the IP addresses contained therein are dynamic and therefore no longer tied to a specific user or machine?  What is this data worth to them that there is any difficulty in convincing them to let it go?  If they sent these logs straight to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/null, what harm would it do to their business?  Or, for a less extreme scenario, if they did whatever statistical analysis they care to do and then securely wiped those logs in say, one week, how would that harm them in any way?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We want privacy - give it to us.Who is this we you speak of ?
Your average internet user really does n't seem to give a damn as long as they can get what they want quickly and easily .
Just look at the success of some of these games on social networking sites .
Like Mafia Wars for instance ; basically nothing more than a database with a shitty HTML front end that offers no real game play or player interactions yet people eat it up , allowing companies like Zynga to scrap profile data or serve them " customer surveys " or " trail offers " and " free products " ... People fill that crap out trading their privacy for an increase in an arbitrary value in some shitty " app " .One question seems to be largely unanswered : of what value is months-old data , especially when many of the IP addresses contained therein are dynamic and therefore no longer tied to a specific user or machine ?
What is this data worth to them that there is any difficulty in convincing them to let it go ?
If they sent these logs straight to /dev/null , what harm would it do to their business ?
Or , for a less extreme scenario , if they did whatever statistical analysis they care to do and then securely wiped those logs in say , one week , how would that harm them in any way ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We want privacy - give it to us.Who is this we you speak of?
Your average internet user really doesn't seem to give a damn as long as they can get what they want quickly and easily.
Just look at the success of some of these games on social networking sites.
Like Mafia Wars for instance; basically nothing more than a database with a shitty HTML front end that offers no real game play or player interactions yet people eat it up, allowing companies like Zynga to scrap profile data or serve them "customer surveys" or "trail offers" and "free products"... People fill that crap out trading their privacy for an increase in an arbitrary value in some shitty "app".One question seems to be largely unanswered:  of what value is months-old data, especially when many of the IP addresses contained therein are dynamic and therefore no longer tied to a specific user or machine?
What is this data worth to them that there is any difficulty in convincing them to let it go?
If they sent these logs straight to /dev/null, what harm would it do to their business?
Or, for a less extreme scenario, if they did whatever statistical analysis they care to do and then securely wiped those logs in say, one week, how would that harm them in any way?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30829046</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it that advertisers</title>
	<author>LordLucless</author>
	<datestamp>1264017840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because the police have extra-ordinary powers, and they require permission to use them? If an advertiser placed a tap on your phoneline, or a keylogger on your computer, you can bet they'd be in violation of the law. Police, on the other hand, are legally allowed to do these things, once they have permission.<br>
<br>
Dealing with advertisers is entirely your choice. They only have control over the information you give them. If you choose to give them your information, that's your choice. If you don't like their terms, don't do business with them. The government does not exist to shape the world the way you'd like it to be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the police have extra-ordinary powers , and they require permission to use them ?
If an advertiser placed a tap on your phoneline , or a keylogger on your computer , you can bet they 'd be in violation of the law .
Police , on the other hand , are legally allowed to do these things , once they have permission .
Dealing with advertisers is entirely your choice .
They only have control over the information you give them .
If you choose to give them your information , that 's your choice .
If you do n't like their terms , do n't do business with them .
The government does not exist to shape the world the way you 'd like it to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the police have extra-ordinary powers, and they require permission to use them?
If an advertiser placed a tap on your phoneline, or a keylogger on your computer, you can bet they'd be in violation of the law.
Police, on the other hand, are legally allowed to do these things, once they have permission.
Dealing with advertisers is entirely your choice.
They only have control over the information you give them.
If you choose to give them your information, that's your choice.
If you don't like their terms, don't do business with them.
The government does not exist to shape the world the way you'd like it to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825420</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825942</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263901920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <em> After Google's CEO's comments about privacy is only wanted by wrongdoers</em></p></div> </blockquote><p>Except, of course, that he never said that. He was asked in an interview whether users should consider Google as a "trusted friend" -- <i>and he said no.</i> He said that if you're doing something that you don't want anyone to know about, doing it on Google is a bad idea<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... since Google is just as subject to U.S. law, including the USA PATRIOT Act, as any other company is.</p><p>He didn't say that only wrongdoers want privacy and that everyone should trust Google. He said that if you want perfect privacy, you can't get it from Google, because the law doesn't allow it. That's pretty much the opposite!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After Google 's CEO 's comments about privacy is only wanted by wrongdoers Except , of course , that he never said that .
He was asked in an interview whether users should consider Google as a " trusted friend " -- and he said no .
He said that if you 're doing something that you do n't want anyone to know about , doing it on Google is a bad idea ... since Google is just as subject to U.S. law , including the USA PATRIOT Act , as any other company is.He did n't say that only wrongdoers want privacy and that everyone should trust Google .
He said that if you want perfect privacy , you ca n't get it from Google , because the law does n't allow it .
That 's pretty much the opposite !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  After Google's CEO's comments about privacy is only wanted by wrongdoers Except, of course, that he never said that.
He was asked in an interview whether users should consider Google as a "trusted friend" -- and he said no.
He said that if you're doing something that you don't want anyone to know about, doing it on Google is a bad idea ... since Google is just as subject to U.S. law, including the USA PATRIOT Act, as any other company is.He didn't say that only wrongdoers want privacy and that everyone should trust Google.
He said that if you want perfect privacy, you can't get it from Google, because the law doesn't allow it.
That's pretty much the opposite!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826692</id>
	<title>Tor + Scroogle SSL + Safe-Mail SSL = you win!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263906600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fire up Tor:</p><p><a href="https://www.torproject.org/" title="torproject.org" rel="nofollow">https://www.torproject.org/</a> [torproject.org]</p><p>Properly configure it and use Scroogle SSL:</p><p><a href="https://ssl.scroogle.org/" title="scroogle.org" rel="nofollow">https://ssl.scroogle.org/</a> [scroogle.org]</p><p>Couple it with a decent mail client not requiring cookies or script:</p><p><a href="https://www.safe-mail.net/" title="safe-mail.net" rel="nofollow">https://www.safe-mail.net/</a> [safe-mail.net]</p><p>Problem solved!</p><p>I have no desire or need for Microsoft/Google's direct offerings and surely not mail from either when Tor + Safe-Mail SSL does the job without scripts, cookies, flash, java, etc.</p><p>Exit nodes? Hah! It's all SSL, baby! (provided the user verifies everything is correct and in order)</p><p>Do you really, really, REALLY trust Microsoft (or Google)? HAHAHAHAH!</p><p>If it's not encrypted, it's not worth a SHIT.</p><p>None of it is done correctly (regarding insecure unencrypted websites), if you search naked without something like tor &amp; ssl, you are stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fire up Tor : https : //www.torproject.org/ [ torproject.org ] Properly configure it and use Scroogle SSL : https : //ssl.scroogle.org/ [ scroogle.org ] Couple it with a decent mail client not requiring cookies or script : https : //www.safe-mail.net/ [ safe-mail.net ] Problem solved ! I have no desire or need for Microsoft/Google 's direct offerings and surely not mail from either when Tor + Safe-Mail SSL does the job without scripts , cookies , flash , java , etc.Exit nodes ?
Hah ! It 's all SSL , baby !
( provided the user verifies everything is correct and in order ) Do you really , really , REALLY trust Microsoft ( or Google ) ?
HAHAHAHAH ! If it 's not encrypted , it 's not worth a SHIT.None of it is done correctly ( regarding insecure unencrypted websites ) , if you search naked without something like tor &amp; ssl , you are stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fire up Tor:https://www.torproject.org/ [torproject.org]Properly configure it and use Scroogle SSL:https://ssl.scroogle.org/ [scroogle.org]Couple it with a decent mail client not requiring cookies or script:https://www.safe-mail.net/ [safe-mail.net]Problem solved!I have no desire or need for Microsoft/Google's direct offerings and surely not mail from either when Tor + Safe-Mail SSL does the job without scripts, cookies, flash, java, etc.Exit nodes?
Hah! It's all SSL, baby!
(provided the user verifies everything is correct and in order)Do you really, really, REALLY trust Microsoft (or Google)?
HAHAHAHAH!If it's not encrypted, it's not worth a SHIT.None of it is done correctly (regarding insecure unencrypted websites), if you search naked without something like tor &amp; ssl, you are stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825732</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Tonyzz</author>
	<datestamp>1263900960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>couldn't agree more</htmltext>
<tokenext>could n't agree more</tokentext>
<sentencetext>couldn't agree more</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30827028</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263909120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was this an ironic retort to my AC post just above yours? =p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was this an ironic retort to my AC post just above yours ?
= p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was this an ironic retort to my AC post just above yours?
=p</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825222</id>
	<title>Hah</title>
	<author>dedazo</author>
	<datestamp>1263898860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google won't follow suit? The difference here is that Bing is a loss leader for Microsoft. People want more privacy? No problem sez Microsoft, whatever. It's not like they live off the data they mine from their search engine users (which last I heard was something like 4\% of the total in the US).</p><p>For Google, government-mandated privacy regulations can really hurt the bottom line. That data and how long they can hold on to it is essentially their business model.</p><p>I actually wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft become a champion of consumer privacy on the Internet later on... you know, for the children.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google wo n't follow suit ?
The difference here is that Bing is a loss leader for Microsoft .
People want more privacy ?
No problem sez Microsoft , whatever .
It 's not like they live off the data they mine from their search engine users ( which last I heard was something like 4 \ % of the total in the US ) .For Google , government-mandated privacy regulations can really hurt the bottom line .
That data and how long they can hold on to it is essentially their business model.I actually would n't be surprised to see Microsoft become a champion of consumer privacy on the Internet later on... you know , for the children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google won't follow suit?
The difference here is that Bing is a loss leader for Microsoft.
People want more privacy?
No problem sez Microsoft, whatever.
It's not like they live off the data they mine from their search engine users (which last I heard was something like 4\% of the total in the US).For Google, government-mandated privacy regulations can really hurt the bottom line.
That data and how long they can hold on to it is essentially their business model.I actually wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft become a champion of consumer privacy on the Internet later on... you know, for the children.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825498</id>
	<title>Google keeps info for 2 years</title>
	<author>PedroMoncrief</author>
	<datestamp>1263899940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mozilla says Bing is better than GMail in regards to privacy. Even Steven Balmer has something to say about Google keeping info for two years...

<a href="http://lonerboner.com/hatebomb-fuck-google-theyre-the-evil-empire" title="lonerboner.com" rel="nofollow">http://lonerboner.com/hatebomb-fuck-google-theyre-the-evil-empire</a> [lonerboner.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mozilla says Bing is better than GMail in regards to privacy .
Even Steven Balmer has something to say about Google keeping info for two years.. . http : //lonerboner.com/hatebomb-fuck-google-theyre-the-evil-empire [ lonerboner.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mozilla says Bing is better than GMail in regards to privacy.
Even Steven Balmer has something to say about Google keeping info for two years...

http://lonerboner.com/hatebomb-fuck-google-theyre-the-evil-empire [lonerboner.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826066</id>
	<title>Someone should delete Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263902580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone should delete Microsoft. Criminal monopoly. Expensive date.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone should delete Microsoft .
Criminal monopoly .
Expensive date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone should delete Microsoft.
Criminal monopoly.
Expensive date.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825474</id>
	<title>Looks like Yahoo is the search to use.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263899820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you want privacy it looks like Yahoo is clearly the winner here. Thankfully you can use their engine and avoid the madness with <a href="http://www.altavista.com/" title="altavista.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.altavista.com/</a> [altavista.com] <br>
I never moved on to Google from Altavista and haven't seen a good reason to yet. Only reasons not to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want privacy it looks like Yahoo is clearly the winner here .
Thankfully you can use their engine and avoid the madness with http : //www.altavista.com/ [ altavista.com ] I never moved on to Google from Altavista and have n't seen a good reason to yet .
Only reasons not to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want privacy it looks like Yahoo is clearly the winner here.
Thankfully you can use their engine and avoid the madness with http://www.altavista.com/ [altavista.com] 
I never moved on to Google from Altavista and haven't seen a good reason to yet.
Only reasons not to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826042</id>
	<title>None of This Matters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263902460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and pretty much everyone else with a big enough data center, records everything every user does.  In the case of the Big Three, they record every click, every window open and close, every tab open and close, every URL (except HTTPS) browsed to any way, in near real time.  (Why did you think they released those toolbars?)  All of these are associated with a GUID (This is NOT your IP address.  DHCP and laptops makes these worthless after a few hours.  They want to track people.  Not NICs.)  The GUID, is SHA1 hashed, so researchers can't recover it.</p><p>The fact is, no one bothers to try to put everything together, because you can do pretty much everything you want without needing to read someone's email or anything.  (Yes, they do that too.  But you already knew that with GMail ads right?)</p><p>Quite honestly, no one cares about any one user, because there are millions of users, and billions of pages viewed.  As a researcher, you want to watch the swarm.  An individual gnat, isn't that interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google , Microsoft , Yahoo , and pretty much everyone else with a big enough data center , records everything every user does .
In the case of the Big Three , they record every click , every window open and close , every tab open and close , every URL ( except HTTPS ) browsed to any way , in near real time .
( Why did you think they released those toolbars ?
) All of these are associated with a GUID ( This is NOT your IP address .
DHCP and laptops makes these worthless after a few hours .
They want to track people .
Not NICs .
) The GUID , is SHA1 hashed , so researchers ca n't recover it.The fact is , no one bothers to try to put everything together , because you can do pretty much everything you want without needing to read someone 's email or anything .
( Yes , they do that too .
But you already knew that with GMail ads right ?
) Quite honestly , no one cares about any one user , because there are millions of users , and billions of pages viewed .
As a researcher , you want to watch the swarm .
An individual gnat , is n't that interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and pretty much everyone else with a big enough data center, records everything every user does.
In the case of the Big Three, they record every click, every window open and close, every tab open and close, every URL (except HTTPS) browsed to any way, in near real time.
(Why did you think they released those toolbars?
)  All of these are associated with a GUID (This is NOT your IP address.
DHCP and laptops makes these worthless after a few hours.
They want to track people.
Not NICs.
)  The GUID, is SHA1 hashed, so researchers can't recover it.The fact is, no one bothers to try to put everything together, because you can do pretty much everything you want without needing to read someone's email or anything.
(Yes, they do that too.
But you already knew that with GMail ads right?
)Quite honestly, no one cares about any one user, because there are millions of users, and billions of pages viewed.
As a researcher, you want to watch the swarm.
An individual gnat, isn't that interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826178</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1263903240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Microsoft handed over search data without being forced to do so.</p></div><p>Oh please! According the your cited article, Microsoft gave away "aggregated query data, not search results, that did not include any personally identifiable information". Google does this <a href="http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends" title="google.com">all the time!</a> [google.com] </p><p>I also equate being subpoenaed to being forced.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft handed over search data without being forced to do so.Oh please !
According the your cited article , Microsoft gave away " aggregated query data , not search results , that did not include any personally identifiable information " .
Google does this all the time !
[ google.com ] I also equate being subpoenaed to being forced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft handed over search data without being forced to do so.Oh please!
According the your cited article, Microsoft gave away "aggregated query data, not search results, that did not include any personally identifiable information".
Google does this all the time!
[google.com] I also equate being subpoenaed to being forced.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825314</id>
	<title>Microsoft is turning good?!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263899160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's how they're going to differentiate themselves in a mature saturated industry - by being good. Maybe Balmer was visited by three ghosts on Christmas Eve.</p><p>Yep. Microsoft is good. Google is Evil and Apple is on their way. We also have a black president - I think this is an alternate universe that I somehow got sent to. I'm a physicist at LHC and things were going great until recently<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... I don't know. Geeze, My heart is just pitter patting - my right side of my body can feel it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's how they 're going to differentiate themselves in a mature saturated industry - by being good .
Maybe Balmer was visited by three ghosts on Christmas Eve.Yep .
Microsoft is good .
Google is Evil and Apple is on their way .
We also have a black president - I think this is an alternate universe that I somehow got sent to .
I 'm a physicist at LHC and things were going great until recently .... I do n't know .
Geeze , My heart is just pitter patting - my right side of my body can feel it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's how they're going to differentiate themselves in a mature saturated industry - by being good.
Maybe Balmer was visited by three ghosts on Christmas Eve.Yep.
Microsoft is good.
Google is Evil and Apple is on their way.
We also have a black president - I think this is an alternate universe that I somehow got sent to.
I'm a physicist at LHC and things were going great until recently .... I don't know.
Geeze, My heart is just pitter patting - my right side of my body can feel it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825642</id>
	<title>This is hilarious</title>
	<author>Ziekheid</author>
	<datestamp>1263900660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EU is whining about Bling (which is a good thing for our privacy btw) but is also pressing for data retention laws in every EU country (ofcourse using "the war on terrorism" as its motto) and succeeded.<br>The EU suggested storing the data for as long as 24 months, the Netherlands for example went for 12 months and stepped back to 6 months eventually. Belgium is probably still going for 24 months.<br>Now I'm wondering who will hurt my privacy more, Bling, Google or the government with its archive of my travel data (new travel cards with rfid in the Netherlands), email data, phone data, medical data (EPD), fingerprint and for some DNA data and soon GPS data in a carbox to track the miles you make for miletaxes (Called Kilometerheffing in dutch).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU is whining about Bling ( which is a good thing for our privacy btw ) but is also pressing for data retention laws in every EU country ( ofcourse using " the war on terrorism " as its motto ) and succeeded.The EU suggested storing the data for as long as 24 months , the Netherlands for example went for 12 months and stepped back to 6 months eventually .
Belgium is probably still going for 24 months.Now I 'm wondering who will hurt my privacy more , Bling , Google or the government with its archive of my travel data ( new travel cards with rfid in the Netherlands ) , email data , phone data , medical data ( EPD ) , fingerprint and for some DNA data and soon GPS data in a carbox to track the miles you make for miletaxes ( Called Kilometerheffing in dutch ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU is whining about Bling (which is a good thing for our privacy btw) but is also pressing for data retention laws in every EU country (ofcourse using "the war on terrorism" as its motto) and succeeded.The EU suggested storing the data for as long as 24 months, the Netherlands for example went for 12 months and stepped back to 6 months eventually.
Belgium is probably still going for 24 months.Now I'm wondering who will hurt my privacy more, Bling, Google or the government with its archive of my travel data (new travel cards with rfid in the Netherlands), email data, phone data, medical data (EPD), fingerprint and for some DNA data and soon GPS data in a carbox to track the miles you make for miletaxes (Called Kilometerheffing in dutch).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826446</id>
	<title>Googlesteppers anonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263904740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A much better policy than "Don't be evil."  We have seen that enough.</p><p>As someone who works in politics and activism and is technically proficient, this policy official seals it:</p><p>I will from here on set Bing as the default home page for every copy of Firefox I install on the various computers I maintain for me and many others.</p><p>Getting off the google crack is tough. All their stuff works together so well.  But search histories are the weak link in setting up a strong wall of privacy.</p><p>Microsoft, for all its faults, has a history of being good on privacy rights and a far better record than google.  It seems to be that the impetus for Msoft's history is because government has for years antaogonized the giant.</p><p>The 90's trust-busting campaigns against Microsoft and more generally the role of government as a foil to business certainly do not foster a cooperative spirit between biz and federal agencies with the power of subpoena.   Microsoft certainly is the quintessential business.</p><p>Google, on the other hand, purposefully blurs the lines between government and business: Google books copyright issues, Chinese censorship, trans-nationalism, AdSense content fixing, activism,  epedemic search reporting, etc.  Their corporate philosophy is reflected with their political leanings - Google heavily funds progressive pro government candidates.</p><p>Google itself was nearly synonymous with the Web 2.0 wave, also associated with left wing activist causes and socialistic pro gov candidates.</p><p>F5 through the scroogle.org pictures sometime.</p><p>For all its "Dont be evil" promises Google is far to cozy with government for my taste.<br>All business does is try to screw you, government tries to control you.</p><p>I'll take a big biz over big gov any day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A much better policy than " Do n't be evil .
" We have seen that enough.As someone who works in politics and activism and is technically proficient , this policy official seals it : I will from here on set Bing as the default home page for every copy of Firefox I install on the various computers I maintain for me and many others.Getting off the google crack is tough .
All their stuff works together so well .
But search histories are the weak link in setting up a strong wall of privacy.Microsoft , for all its faults , has a history of being good on privacy rights and a far better record than google .
It seems to be that the impetus for Msoft 's history is because government has for years antaogonized the giant.The 90 's trust-busting campaigns against Microsoft and more generally the role of government as a foil to business certainly do not foster a cooperative spirit between biz and federal agencies with the power of subpoena .
Microsoft certainly is the quintessential business.Google , on the other hand , purposefully blurs the lines between government and business : Google books copyright issues , Chinese censorship , trans-nationalism , AdSense content fixing , activism , epedemic search reporting , etc .
Their corporate philosophy is reflected with their political leanings - Google heavily funds progressive pro government candidates.Google itself was nearly synonymous with the Web 2.0 wave , also associated with left wing activist causes and socialistic pro gov candidates.F5 through the scroogle.org pictures sometime.For all its " Dont be evil " promises Google is far to cozy with government for my taste.All business does is try to screw you , government tries to control you.I 'll take a big biz over big gov any day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A much better policy than "Don't be evil.
"  We have seen that enough.As someone who works in politics and activism and is technically proficient, this policy official seals it:I will from here on set Bing as the default home page for every copy of Firefox I install on the various computers I maintain for me and many others.Getting off the google crack is tough.
All their stuff works together so well.
But search histories are the weak link in setting up a strong wall of privacy.Microsoft, for all its faults, has a history of being good on privacy rights and a far better record than google.
It seems to be that the impetus for Msoft's history is because government has for years antaogonized the giant.The 90's trust-busting campaigns against Microsoft and more generally the role of government as a foil to business certainly do not foster a cooperative spirit between biz and federal agencies with the power of subpoena.
Microsoft certainly is the quintessential business.Google, on the other hand, purposefully blurs the lines between government and business: Google books copyright issues, Chinese censorship, trans-nationalism, AdSense content fixing, activism,  epedemic search reporting, etc.
Their corporate philosophy is reflected with their political leanings - Google heavily funds progressive pro government candidates.Google itself was nearly synonymous with the Web 2.0 wave, also associated with left wing activist causes and socialistic pro gov candidates.F5 through the scroogle.org pictures sometime.For all its "Dont be evil" promises Google is far to cozy with government for my taste.All business does is try to screw you, government tries to control you.I'll take a big biz over big gov any day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826168</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1263903180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just look at the success of some of these games on social networking sites. People fill that crap out trading their privacy for an increase in an arbitrary value in some shitty "app".</p></div><p>
How many people do that? Only a fraction of the population plays facebook apps. Only a fraction of those people start filling out surveys. Only a fraction still of those people remaining actually complete and submit the surveys (with the most intrusive questions/conditions/fine prints always being discovered near the end of it). Plus, some of those people who just stopped filling out those surveys midway through -- just end up sending some cash through pay pal. So what's the remaining percentage of actual people that have given up their privacy? 1\%? 2\%? Do you want those people to really speak for all of us? Personally, I can tell you they don't speak for me.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Your average internet user really doesn't seem to give a damn as long as they can get what they want quickly and easily.</p> </div><p>Where it comes to privacy, there are no "average" users. A fourteen year old kid, for instance, may have no qualms about compromising his privacy to large corporations in return for shiny useless things, but that same kid will scream bloody murder if his parents or the officials of his school start going through his locker, his bag, his computer, or his room. </p><p>Same goes for every possible demographics out there. Everyone wants privacy from someone. It may be from their spouse, their ex, their family, their mother or brother-in-law, their clergy, their neighbor, their boss, their cops, the city, the state, the large corporations, the scammers, the telemarketers, the banks, the schools, or the homeless guy who's constantly digging through your garbage, but at least we all want privacy from *someone*.</p><p>Now, we may not all agree on who we want privacy from, but that doesn't matter. A privacy law that protects your credit report from large corporations or from your employer can also be the same law that protects my credit report from my brother-in-law and many scammers. And ultimately, we may not be worried about the same things, and we certainly don't behave the same way, but we have a common interest in creating strong privacy laws that protect everyone (and not just the people at the very top).

</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just look at the success of some of these games on social networking sites .
People fill that crap out trading their privacy for an increase in an arbitrary value in some shitty " app " .
How many people do that ?
Only a fraction of the population plays facebook apps .
Only a fraction of those people start filling out surveys .
Only a fraction still of those people remaining actually complete and submit the surveys ( with the most intrusive questions/conditions/fine prints always being discovered near the end of it ) .
Plus , some of those people who just stopped filling out those surveys midway through -- just end up sending some cash through pay pal .
So what 's the remaining percentage of actual people that have given up their privacy ?
1 \ % ? 2 \ % ?
Do you want those people to really speak for all of us ?
Personally , I can tell you they do n't speak for me.Your average internet user really does n't seem to give a damn as long as they can get what they want quickly and easily .
Where it comes to privacy , there are no " average " users .
A fourteen year old kid , for instance , may have no qualms about compromising his privacy to large corporations in return for shiny useless things , but that same kid will scream bloody murder if his parents or the officials of his school start going through his locker , his bag , his computer , or his room .
Same goes for every possible demographics out there .
Everyone wants privacy from someone .
It may be from their spouse , their ex , their family , their mother or brother-in-law , their clergy , their neighbor , their boss , their cops , the city , the state , the large corporations , the scammers , the telemarketers , the banks , the schools , or the homeless guy who 's constantly digging through your garbage , but at least we all want privacy from * someone * .Now , we may not all agree on who we want privacy from , but that does n't matter .
A privacy law that protects your credit report from large corporations or from your employer can also be the same law that protects my credit report from my brother-in-law and many scammers .
And ultimately , we may not be worried about the same things , and we certainly do n't behave the same way , but we have a common interest in creating strong privacy laws that protect everyone ( and not just the people at the very top ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just look at the success of some of these games on social networking sites.
People fill that crap out trading their privacy for an increase in an arbitrary value in some shitty "app".
How many people do that?
Only a fraction of the population plays facebook apps.
Only a fraction of those people start filling out surveys.
Only a fraction still of those people remaining actually complete and submit the surveys (with the most intrusive questions/conditions/fine prints always being discovered near the end of it).
Plus, some of those people who just stopped filling out those surveys midway through -- just end up sending some cash through pay pal.
So what's the remaining percentage of actual people that have given up their privacy?
1\%? 2\%?
Do you want those people to really speak for all of us?
Personally, I can tell you they don't speak for me.Your average internet user really doesn't seem to give a damn as long as they can get what they want quickly and easily.
Where it comes to privacy, there are no "average" users.
A fourteen year old kid, for instance, may have no qualms about compromising his privacy to large corporations in return for shiny useless things, but that same kid will scream bloody murder if his parents or the officials of his school start going through his locker, his bag, his computer, or his room.
Same goes for every possible demographics out there.
Everyone wants privacy from someone.
It may be from their spouse, their ex, their family, their mother or brother-in-law, their clergy, their neighbor, their boss, their cops, the city, the state, the large corporations, the scammers, the telemarketers, the banks, the schools, or the homeless guy who's constantly digging through your garbage, but at least we all want privacy from *someone*.Now, we may not all agree on who we want privacy from, but that doesn't matter.
A privacy law that protects your credit report from large corporations or from your employer can also be the same law that protects my credit report from my brother-in-law and many scammers.
And ultimately, we may not be worried about the same things, and we certainly don't behave the same way, but we have a common interest in creating strong privacy laws that protect everyone (and not just the people at the very top).


	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826944</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy -- ixquick</title>
	<author>olden</author>
	<datestamp>1263908520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Er, Bing might not be <i>'as worse'</i> as Google anymore when it comes to privacy, but I definitely wouldn't say it's "done correctly" either.<br> <br>
You may want to check out <a href="http://www.ixquick.com/" title="ixquick.com">ixquick</a> [ixquick.com], a <a href="http://www.ixquick.com/eng/aboutixquick/" title="ixquick.com">meta-search engine that doesn't log your IP etc at all</a> [ixquick.com] -- that surely beats deleting <i>some</i> info after <i>some</i> time in my book.<br>
(better yet, ixquick is also available over SSL, in case you're concerned about your ISP snooping too... Oh, hello Comcast...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Er , Bing might not be 'as worse ' as Google anymore when it comes to privacy , but I definitely would n't say it 's " done correctly " either .
You may want to check out ixquick [ ixquick.com ] , a meta-search engine that does n't log your IP etc at all [ ixquick.com ] -- that surely beats deleting some info after some time in my book .
( better yet , ixquick is also available over SSL , in case you 're concerned about your ISP snooping too... Oh , hello Comcast... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Er, Bing might not be 'as worse' as Google anymore when it comes to privacy, but I definitely wouldn't say it's "done correctly" either.
You may want to check out ixquick [ixquick.com], a meta-search engine that doesn't log your IP etc at all [ixquick.com] -- that surely beats deleting some info after some time in my book.
(better yet, ixquick is also available over SSL, in case you're concerned about your ISP snooping too... Oh, hello Comcast...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826504</id>
	<title>Why will Microsoft match their competitors</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1263905160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would Microsoft say "it would reduce its retention time to six months, but only if its rivals followed suit"? What difference does it make what their competitors do in this regard? How does keeping the IP data for longer give them any real advantage?</p><p>Sure they can target advertisments based on my search queries, but then they can also do it based on the current site that I'm on. At least they know what I am reading know is still relevant to me. Ever since the court case, I'm not interested in that thing I was searching for 6 months ago. (Oh, what a giveaway!)</p><p>The fact that they resisted voluntarily reducing the retention time suggests that they are doing something that I would prefer that they didn't do. I just don't know what it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would Microsoft say " it would reduce its retention time to six months , but only if its rivals followed suit " ?
What difference does it make what their competitors do in this regard ?
How does keeping the IP data for longer give them any real advantage ? Sure they can target advertisments based on my search queries , but then they can also do it based on the current site that I 'm on .
At least they know what I am reading know is still relevant to me .
Ever since the court case , I 'm not interested in that thing I was searching for 6 months ago .
( Oh , what a giveaway !
) The fact that they resisted voluntarily reducing the retention time suggests that they are doing something that I would prefer that they did n't do .
I just do n't know what it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would Microsoft say "it would reduce its retention time to six months, but only if its rivals followed suit"?
What difference does it make what their competitors do in this regard?
How does keeping the IP data for longer give them any real advantage?Sure they can target advertisments based on my search queries, but then they can also do it based on the current site that I'm on.
At least they know what I am reading know is still relevant to me.
Ever since the court case, I'm not interested in that thing I was searching for 6 months ago.
(Oh, what a giveaway!
)The fact that they resisted voluntarily reducing the retention time suggests that they are doing something that I would prefer that they didn't do.
I just don't know what it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825220</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263898800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We want privacy - give it to us.</p></div><p>Who is this <b>we</b> you speak of? Your average internet user really doesn't seem to give a damn as long as they can get what they want quickly and easily. Just look at the success of some of these games on social networking sites. Like Mafia Wars for instance; basically nothing more than a database with a shitty HTML front end that offers no real game play or player interactions yet people eat it up, allowing companies like Zynga to scrap profile data or serve them "customer surveys" or "trail offers" and "free products"... People fill that crap out trading their privacy for an increase in an arbitrary value in some shitty "app".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We want privacy - give it to us.Who is this we you speak of ?
Your average internet user really does n't seem to give a damn as long as they can get what they want quickly and easily .
Just look at the success of some of these games on social networking sites .
Like Mafia Wars for instance ; basically nothing more than a database with a shitty HTML front end that offers no real game play or player interactions yet people eat it up , allowing companies like Zynga to scrap profile data or serve them " customer surveys " or " trail offers " and " free products " ... People fill that crap out trading their privacy for an increase in an arbitrary value in some shitty " app " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We want privacy - give it to us.Who is this we you speak of?
Your average internet user really doesn't seem to give a damn as long as they can get what they want quickly and easily.
Just look at the success of some of these games on social networking sites.
Like Mafia Wars for instance; basically nothing more than a database with a shitty HTML front end that offers no real game play or player interactions yet people eat it up, allowing companies like Zynga to scrap profile data or serve them "customer surveys" or "trail offers" and "free products"... People fill that crap out trading their privacy for an increase in an arbitrary value in some shitty "app".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825332</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263899220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know what they say when you piss against the wind...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what they say when you piss against the wind.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what they say when you piss against the wind...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826298</id>
	<title>Parsed this as "Bling IP data"</title>
	<author>Eggplant62</author>
	<datestamp>1263903840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See subject. Sorry, I've not even bothered looking at Bing, so no further comment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See subject .
Sorry , I 've not even bothered looking at Bing , so no further comment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See subject.
Sorry, I've not even bothered looking at Bing, so no further comment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30828176</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263920340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GP is not a troll. Those are all valid positions to have. Neither google nor open source has fed my kids. Working on MS tech has allowed me to put food on the table.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GP is not a troll .
Those are all valid positions to have .
Neither google nor open source has fed my kids .
Working on MS tech has allowed me to put food on the table .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GP is not a troll.
Those are all valid positions to have.
Neither google nor open source has fed my kids.
Working on MS tech has allowed me to put food on the table.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826676</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263906420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, and compared to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking\_wheel" title="wikipedia.org">breaking wheel</a> [wikipedia.org], Waterboarding also sounds good.</p><p>But it&rsquo;s still bad. There is no rule that one has to be good. They can just all be bad.<br>Which is this case.... is the case.</p><p>(But I agree, that that statement by Google <em>really</em> throws them down the ranks. I just have my doubts, because MS usually is a couple of steps more experienced in being evil.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , and compared to the breaking wheel [ wikipedia.org ] , Waterboarding also sounds good.But it    s still bad .
There is no rule that one has to be good .
They can just all be bad.Which is this case.... is the case .
( But I agree , that that statement by Google really throws them down the ranks .
I just have my doubts , because MS usually is a couple of steps more experienced in being evil .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, and compared to the breaking wheel [wikipedia.org], Waterboarding also sounds good.But it’s still bad.
There is no rule that one has to be good.
They can just all be bad.Which is this case.... is the case.
(But I agree, that that statement by Google really throws them down the ranks.
I just have my doubts, because MS usually is a couple of steps more experienced in being evil.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30827446</id>
	<title>Who follows privacy policies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263912840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't matter what the privacy policy says <a href="http://lawsuit.privacy.net/" title="privacy.net" rel="nofollow">if they don't follow it.</a> [privacy.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter what the privacy policy says if they do n't follow it .
[ privacy.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter what the privacy policy says if they don't follow it.
[privacy.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825532</id>
	<title>A government protecting privacy?</title>
	<author>calmofthestorm</author>
	<datestamp>1263900120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well that's different!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well that 's different !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well that's different!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825308</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1263899160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shortly thereafter it was demonstrated that <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/12/2329231/Google-Hacked-May-Pull-Out-of-China" title="slashdot.org">right-doers could use some privacy as well</a> [slashdot.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Shortly thereafter it was demonstrated that right-doers could use some privacy as well [ slashdot.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shortly thereafter it was demonstrated that right-doers could use some privacy as well [slashdot.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825330</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263899220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft handed over search data without being forced to do so.</p><p><a href="http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/government/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=177102061" title="informationweek.com">http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/government/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=177102061</a> [informationweek.com]</p><p>Google was the only major search engine to fight to protect your privacy.</p><p>Google also fought court orders in Brazil to protect privacy for their Orkut users.</p><p>I can understand the logic of a statement that only criminals have something to hide, but in practice, Google has done more to protect your privacy than Microsoft. That is just comparing them as search companies. I won't even get into Windows and Microsoft products "phoning home" without telling you, and the latest rumors that Microsoft included a backdoor in Windows 7 for the NSA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft handed over search data without being forced to do so.http : //www.informationweek.com/news/security/government/showArticle.jhtml ? articleID = 177102061 [ informationweek.com ] Google was the only major search engine to fight to protect your privacy.Google also fought court orders in Brazil to protect privacy for their Orkut users.I can understand the logic of a statement that only criminals have something to hide , but in practice , Google has done more to protect your privacy than Microsoft .
That is just comparing them as search companies .
I wo n't even get into Windows and Microsoft products " phoning home " without telling you , and the latest rumors that Microsoft included a backdoor in Windows 7 for the NSA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft handed over search data without being forced to do so.http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/government/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=177102061 [informationweek.com]Google was the only major search engine to fight to protect your privacy.Google also fought court orders in Brazil to protect privacy for their Orkut users.I can understand the logic of a statement that only criminals have something to hide, but in practice, Google has done more to protect your privacy than Microsoft.
That is just comparing them as search companies.
I won't even get into Windows and Microsoft products "phoning home" without telling you, and the latest rumors that Microsoft included a backdoor in Windows 7 for the NSA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825626</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Antiocheian</author>
	<datestamp>1263900600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best thing in Bing is that it doesn't make you feel you are in bed with Microsoft. No Tahoma (the windows system font, typical of Microsoft and Windows-centric sites), no Microsoft logo, no Windows sales or XBOX references.</p><p>I like it and I consider making it my default search provider in Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best thing in Bing is that it does n't make you feel you are in bed with Microsoft .
No Tahoma ( the windows system font , typical of Microsoft and Windows-centric sites ) , no Microsoft logo , no Windows sales or XBOX references.I like it and I consider making it my default search provider in Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best thing in Bing is that it doesn't make you feel you are in bed with Microsoft.
No Tahoma (the windows system font, typical of Microsoft and Windows-centric sites), no Microsoft logo, no Windows sales or XBOX references.I like it and I consider making it my default search provider in Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826650</id>
	<title>The policies are staying the same?</title>
	<author>papa\_lizard</author>
	<datestamp>1263906180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Microsoft's policies will remain the same, but now, the company will delete the IP address and other info after six months.</i>
<br> <br>
So their policies will remain the same, but their policies are going to change?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft 's policies will remain the same , but now , the company will delete the IP address and other info after six months .
So their policies will remain the same , but their policies are going to change ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft's policies will remain the same, but now, the company will delete the IP address and other info after six months.
So their policies will remain the same, but their policies are going to change?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825298</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263899100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know I really hate to say I called it.  Google got too big to live up to it's core values.</p><p>Of course, by "anonymized" data, Microsoft means they expect to be hacked and lose the data within 6 months, tops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know I really hate to say I called it .
Google got too big to live up to it 's core values.Of course , by " anonymized " data , Microsoft means they expect to be hacked and lose the data within 6 months , tops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know I really hate to say I called it.
Google got too big to live up to it's core values.Of course, by "anonymized" data, Microsoft means they expect to be hacked and lose the data within 6 months, tops.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825180</id>
	<title>Woot!</title>
	<author>Uranium-238</author>
	<datestamp>1263898680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Smart move Microsoft, even if it was due to pressure, not choice. This might entice a few people from Google to Bing. It certainly interests me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Smart move Microsoft , even if it was due to pressure , not choice .
This might entice a few people from Google to Bing .
It certainly interests me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Smart move Microsoft, even if it was due to pressure, not choice.
This might entice a few people from Google to Bing.
It certainly interests me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30827192</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263910500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OH LOOK, ANOTHER TOOL ONLY READING THE SUMMARY.<br>Perhaps actually READ what context the quote was said next time.</p><p>Google don't give a damn what you do, all they care about is your interests for the sake of ads.<br>Don't like it?  Don't Google, simple.</p><p>And if you seriously believe what Microsoft say at face value, you are really delusion.<br>Every bit of data associated with you will be kept for the sake of advertising just as much as Google.<br>They are using his quotes as an attack vector against them, it is all FUD and you damn well know it is, Microsoft haven't changed, they will never change.</p><p>Also, remind me, who was it that happily gave away your searches again?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OH LOOK , ANOTHER TOOL ONLY READING THE SUMMARY.Perhaps actually READ what context the quote was said next time.Google do n't give a damn what you do , all they care about is your interests for the sake of ads.Do n't like it ?
Do n't Google , simple.And if you seriously believe what Microsoft say at face value , you are really delusion.Every bit of data associated with you will be kept for the sake of advertising just as much as Google.They are using his quotes as an attack vector against them , it is all FUD and you damn well know it is , Microsoft have n't changed , they will never change.Also , remind me , who was it that happily gave away your searches again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OH LOOK, ANOTHER TOOL ONLY READING THE SUMMARY.Perhaps actually READ what context the quote was said next time.Google don't give a damn what you do, all they care about is your interests for the sake of ads.Don't like it?
Don't Google, simple.And if you seriously believe what Microsoft say at face value, you are really delusion.Every bit of data associated with you will be kept for the sake of advertising just as much as Google.They are using his quotes as an attack vector against them, it is all FUD and you damn well know it is, Microsoft haven't changed, they will never change.Also, remind me, who was it that happily gave away your searches again?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30827168</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263910260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/184446/googles\_schmidt\_roasted\_for\_privacy\_comments.html" title="pcworld.com">According to PCWorld</a> [pcworld.com] and <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/09/schneier-vs-schmidt.html" title="boingboing.net">others</a> [boingboing.net], Eric Schmidt said: (my emphasis)<blockquote><div><p>"I think judgment matters. <b>If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place</b>, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it's important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities."</p></div></blockquote><p>Sorry, this does sound to me like one of those despicable and horribly misguided "if you have nothing to hide, why would you want privacy?" line.<br>
I like <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/my\_reaction\_to.html" title="schneier.com">Bruce Schneier's answer</a> [schneier.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to PCWorld [ pcworld.com ] and others [ boingboing.net ] , Eric Schmidt said : ( my emphasis ) " I think judgment matters .
If you have something that you do n't want anyone to know , maybe you should n't be doing it in the first place , but if you really need that kind of privacy , the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time , and it 's important , for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act .
It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities .
" Sorry , this does sound to me like one of those despicable and horribly misguided " if you have nothing to hide , why would you want privacy ?
" line .
I like Bruce Schneier 's answer [ schneier.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to PCWorld [pcworld.com] and others [boingboing.net], Eric Schmidt said: (my emphasis)"I think judgment matters.
If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it's important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act.
It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.
"Sorry, this does sound to me like one of those despicable and horribly misguided "if you have nothing to hide, why would you want privacy?
" line.
I like Bruce Schneier's answer [schneier.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826478</id>
	<title>Does anybody even use Bing knowingly?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263904920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At launch of Bing I have used it to test it and I haven't found any feature that would break my addition to Google. Even if Bing was as good as Google it is still different and requires me to learn a new tool. The only reason I would have learnt a new tool would be if it was any better - but it is not. At least in my opinion.</p><p>So my question is - does anybody even use Bing? Recently I recall that I have used Bing only when I gived the search box at MSFT KB/Support pages (which use Bing) and it just failed for simple queries like "download something-microsoftish". Google is much better even when searching MSFT sites.</p><p>Yes and I know that Google != privacy. But I can cope with that if it works OK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At launch of Bing I have used it to test it and I have n't found any feature that would break my addition to Google .
Even if Bing was as good as Google it is still different and requires me to learn a new tool .
The only reason I would have learnt a new tool would be if it was any better - but it is not .
At least in my opinion.So my question is - does anybody even use Bing ?
Recently I recall that I have used Bing only when I gived the search box at MSFT KB/Support pages ( which use Bing ) and it just failed for simple queries like " download something-microsoftish " .
Google is much better even when searching MSFT sites.Yes and I know that Google ! = privacy .
But I can cope with that if it works OK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At launch of Bing I have used it to test it and I haven't found any feature that would break my addition to Google.
Even if Bing was as good as Google it is still different and requires me to learn a new tool.
The only reason I would have learnt a new tool would be if it was any better - but it is not.
At least in my opinion.So my question is - does anybody even use Bing?
Recently I recall that I have used Bing only when I gived the search box at MSFT KB/Support pages (which use Bing) and it just failed for simple queries like "download something-microsoftish".
Google is much better even when searching MSFT sites.Yes and I know that Google != privacy.
But I can cope with that if it works OK.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30827068</id>
	<title>Re:Glass half full?</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1263909300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To be fair, anything that you type into a search engine, ANY search engine, becomes their data, not yours.  Much like your IP address, location, browser, OS, referrer, search terms, and other info become my data when you visit my website.  Getting rid of it after any time is a courtesy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , anything that you type into a search engine , ANY search engine , becomes their data , not yours .
Much like your IP address , location , browser , OS , referrer , search terms , and other info become my data when you visit my website .
Getting rid of it after any time is a courtesy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, anything that you type into a search engine, ANY search engine, becomes their data, not yours.
Much like your IP address, location, browser, OS, referrer, search terms, and other info become my data when you visit my website.
Getting rid of it after any time is a courtesy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825876</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263901680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, there's the troll sopssa we were all expecting.  Check his history.  Blatant Anti-Google / Anti-Open Source / Pro Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , there 's the troll sopssa we were all expecting .
Check his history .
Blatant Anti-Google / Anti-Open Source / Pro Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, there's the troll sopssa we were all expecting.
Check his history.
Blatant Anti-Google / Anti-Open Source / Pro Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30832034</id>
	<title>Re:Why is it that advertisers</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1264003500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I shouldn't have to do anything to keep my information private from advertisers,they don't provide me with any services,they do pay the web site owners to run ads but even then advertisers work for the producers of products and services. News papers have been advertising for over 100 years with out the ability to spy on the consumers and they did just fine. And i totally disagree with me expecting our government to shape and keep our nation the way it is and was meant to be,thats what made us so strong.
IMO the internet has been changed from what it was ment to be, into a gloryfied JCPennys catalog,if your old enought to remember Mail order catalogs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I should n't have to do anything to keep my information private from advertisers,they do n't provide me with any services,they do pay the web site owners to run ads but even then advertisers work for the producers of products and services .
News papers have been advertising for over 100 years with out the ability to spy on the consumers and they did just fine .
And i totally disagree with me expecting our government to shape and keep our nation the way it is and was meant to be,thats what made us so strong .
IMO the internet has been changed from what it was ment to be , into a gloryfied JCPennys catalog,if your old enought to remember Mail order catalogs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I shouldn't have to do anything to keep my information private from advertisers,they don't provide me with any services,they do pay the web site owners to run ads but even then advertisers work for the producers of products and services.
News papers have been advertising for over 100 years with out the ability to spy on the consumers and they did just fine.
And i totally disagree with me expecting our government to shape and keep our nation the way it is and was meant to be,thats what made us so strong.
IMO the internet has been changed from what it was ment to be, into a gloryfied JCPennys catalog,if your old enought to remember Mail order catalogs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30829046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825688</id>
	<title>Glass half full?</title>
	<author>bit9</author>
	<datestamp>1263900780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More like glass half empty if you ask me. The summary should read "Microsoft To <b>Keep</b> Bing IP Data For <b>6 Months</b>!"</p><p>Is this what passes for "respecting privacy" in 2010? Yes, I understand that this is an improvement over it's previous policy, but in my book, logging IPs <i>at all</i> is too much. I'm of the opinion that anonymity is, overall, a good thing, no matter how many "terrorists" use the Internet to look up bomb recipes.</p><p>I <i>might</i> be okay with private companies tracking your IP if not for the fact that these private companies are too easily and too often compelled to hand over such data to the government, and if the government's uses of that information were not so frequently frivolous and/or nefarious. Not to mention the cases where companies have been willing participants in illegal government snooping, such as with the AT&amp;T wiretapping case. Can anybody honestly suggest that we should all just trust Microsoft (or Yahoo, Google, etc) to keep our private data safe? Heck, when they're not busy willingly handing it over to the government, they're selling it off as marketing fodder.</p><p>Call me old-fashioned, but I believe the government ought to need a proper search warrant if it wants to know everything I've searched for on Google for the past 6 months, or even how many times I've visited the site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More like glass half empty if you ask me .
The summary should read " Microsoft To Keep Bing IP Data For 6 Months !
" Is this what passes for " respecting privacy " in 2010 ?
Yes , I understand that this is an improvement over it 's previous policy , but in my book , logging IPs at all is too much .
I 'm of the opinion that anonymity is , overall , a good thing , no matter how many " terrorists " use the Internet to look up bomb recipes.I might be okay with private companies tracking your IP if not for the fact that these private companies are too easily and too often compelled to hand over such data to the government , and if the government 's uses of that information were not so frequently frivolous and/or nefarious .
Not to mention the cases where companies have been willing participants in illegal government snooping , such as with the AT&amp;T wiretapping case .
Can anybody honestly suggest that we should all just trust Microsoft ( or Yahoo , Google , etc ) to keep our private data safe ?
Heck , when they 're not busy willingly handing it over to the government , they 're selling it off as marketing fodder.Call me old-fashioned , but I believe the government ought to need a proper search warrant if it wants to know everything I 've searched for on Google for the past 6 months , or even how many times I 've visited the site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like glass half empty if you ask me.
The summary should read "Microsoft To Keep Bing IP Data For 6 Months!
"Is this what passes for "respecting privacy" in 2010?
Yes, I understand that this is an improvement over it's previous policy, but in my book, logging IPs at all is too much.
I'm of the opinion that anonymity is, overall, a good thing, no matter how many "terrorists" use the Internet to look up bomb recipes.I might be okay with private companies tracking your IP if not for the fact that these private companies are too easily and too often compelled to hand over such data to the government, and if the government's uses of that information were not so frequently frivolous and/or nefarious.
Not to mention the cases where companies have been willing participants in illegal government snooping, such as with the AT&amp;T wiretapping case.
Can anybody honestly suggest that we should all just trust Microsoft (or Yahoo, Google, etc) to keep our private data safe?
Heck, when they're not busy willingly handing it over to the government, they're selling it off as marketing fodder.Call me old-fashioned, but I believe the government ought to need a proper search warrant if it wants to know everything I've searched for on Google for the past 6 months, or even how many times I've visited the site.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826668</id>
	<title>Bing just has a lot more data now than it had befo</title>
	<author>melted</author>
	<datestamp>1263906360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bing just has a lot more data now than it had before. IE8 "suggested sites" feature sends everything to them. After a certain point the costs of having a dataset of enormous size begin to outweigh the benefits, so people either sample the old data, or delete it outright.</p><p>I suspect this is what's happening in this case as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing just has a lot more data now than it had before .
IE8 " suggested sites " feature sends everything to them .
After a certain point the costs of having a dataset of enormous size begin to outweigh the benefits , so people either sample the old data , or delete it outright.I suspect this is what 's happening in this case as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing just has a lot more data now than it had before.
IE8 "suggested sites" feature sends everything to them.
After a certain point the costs of having a dataset of enormous size begin to outweigh the benefits, so people either sample the old data, or delete it outright.I suspect this is what's happening in this case as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825444</id>
	<title>Re:Hah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263899700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's also an important part of their algorithms. You need some back data to help in analysis of the present. I think that 6 months puts the balance a little too much on the privacy side of the fence, ignoring the usability gains from more long-term storage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's also an important part of their algorithms .
You need some back data to help in analysis of the present .
I think that 6 months puts the balance a little too much on the privacy side of the fence , ignoring the usability gains from more long-term storage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's also an important part of their algorithms.
You need some back data to help in analysis of the present.
I think that 6 months puts the balance a little too much on the privacy side of the fence, ignoring the usability gains from more long-term storage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825262</id>
	<title>The real reason for this announcement?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1263899040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are hosting Bing's IP data on their Danger servers, which naturally lose data about that often.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are hosting Bing 's IP data on their Danger servers , which naturally lose data about that often .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are hosting Bing's IP data on their Danger servers, which naturally lose data about that often.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826012</id>
	<title>More Data is NOT Always Better</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1263902280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A decision about whether and how long to keep what data essentially boils down to a question of economics. Keeping some data is quite obviously valuable because it allows both for better tuning of search engine results AND targeted advertising which opens the door both to more relevant searches or better profits (most probably both). However, if keeping some data is good then keeping more is not always better. First, more data may not necessarily improve search results, particularly if the new data simply reinforces an existing rule or pattern in the search agent (assuming that AI methods are being used). Second, the more data you have stored the more attractive a target you become to various governments around the world (as Google is learning first-hand with Chinese hacking incidents and previously with the DOJ fishing expeditions). Finally, even if you could store everything the cost would be tremendous; even for big companies like Microsoft and Google. Looking at all of the data coming across the wire on the public Internet backbones and storing it is like looking into the Sun or drinking from a fire hose turned on full blast; there are reasons why people don't generally attempt these things (or at least not for indefinite periods of time). Thus, there is a balance to be struck between storing everything and storing nothing; the question is how much and what to store and I believe that the market will ultimately work that one out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A decision about whether and how long to keep what data essentially boils down to a question of economics .
Keeping some data is quite obviously valuable because it allows both for better tuning of search engine results AND targeted advertising which opens the door both to more relevant searches or better profits ( most probably both ) .
However , if keeping some data is good then keeping more is not always better .
First , more data may not necessarily improve search results , particularly if the new data simply reinforces an existing rule or pattern in the search agent ( assuming that AI methods are being used ) .
Second , the more data you have stored the more attractive a target you become to various governments around the world ( as Google is learning first-hand with Chinese hacking incidents and previously with the DOJ fishing expeditions ) .
Finally , even if you could store everything the cost would be tremendous ; even for big companies like Microsoft and Google .
Looking at all of the data coming across the wire on the public Internet backbones and storing it is like looking into the Sun or drinking from a fire hose turned on full blast ; there are reasons why people do n't generally attempt these things ( or at least not for indefinite periods of time ) .
Thus , there is a balance to be struck between storing everything and storing nothing ; the question is how much and what to store and I believe that the market will ultimately work that one out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A decision about whether and how long to keep what data essentially boils down to a question of economics.
Keeping some data is quite obviously valuable because it allows both for better tuning of search engine results AND targeted advertising which opens the door both to more relevant searches or better profits (most probably both).
However, if keeping some data is good then keeping more is not always better.
First, more data may not necessarily improve search results, particularly if the new data simply reinforces an existing rule or pattern in the search agent (assuming that AI methods are being used).
Second, the more data you have stored the more attractive a target you become to various governments around the world (as Google is learning first-hand with Chinese hacking incidents and previously with the DOJ fishing expeditions).
Finally, even if you could store everything the cost would be tremendous; even for big companies like Microsoft and Google.
Looking at all of the data coming across the wire on the public Internet backbones and storing it is like looking into the Sun or drinking from a fire hose turned on full blast; there are reasons why people don't generally attempt these things (or at least not for indefinite periods of time).
Thus, there is a balance to be struck between storing everything and storing nothing; the question is how much and what to store and I believe that the market will ultimately work that one out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825420</id>
	<title>Why is it that advertisers</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1263899640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is it that advertisers can do what the courts must allow police to do and thats to spy on us. Police need a court order to spy on what we do.Advertisers can spy on us in the names of making a profit for there shareholders. And if they copy the IP addresses its not anonymous,that ip address will point to a very real human unless ofcouser they ip address changes daily,but i would guess its isps like AOL that change the ip address all the time. My ip address hasn't changed in over a year. Anonuious means they cant tell if your a male,female,where you live,they know nothing about the person and it cant be guessed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that advertisers can do what the courts must allow police to do and thats to spy on us .
Police need a court order to spy on what we do.Advertisers can spy on us in the names of making a profit for there shareholders .
And if they copy the IP addresses its not anonymous,that ip address will point to a very real human unless ofcouser they ip address changes daily,but i would guess its isps like AOL that change the ip address all the time .
My ip address has n't changed in over a year .
Anonuious means they cant tell if your a male,female,where you live,they know nothing about the person and it cant be guessed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that advertisers can do what the courts must allow police to do and thats to spy on us.
Police need a court order to spy on what we do.Advertisers can spy on us in the names of making a profit for there shareholders.
And if they copy the IP addresses its not anonymous,that ip address will point to a very real human unless ofcouser they ip address changes daily,but i would guess its isps like AOL that change the ip address all the time.
My ip address hasn't changed in over a year.
Anonuious means they cant tell if your a male,female,where you live,they know nothing about the person and it cant be guessed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826738</id>
	<title>Re:Privacy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263906960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's time we made some changes because ISP's are becoming overtly hostile to their users.<br>plain http is not good enough anymore.</p><p>I spent the day working round a block on a file on a uk website the file transfer started and after 34k it stopped.</p><p>A friend has a website and the easiest way to send me a file was to stick it on his server. Again the file failed to transfer using eftp the file was transfered full speed.</p><p>For eircom customers thepiratebay.org is a no go blocked entirely.</p><p>Seems that if we wish to maintain the freedoms we have had over the years on the net we should be using encrypted protocols where ever possible and default to https</p><p>Of course most people don't realise how the Internet is being changed and its up to people like us to ensure it remains a valuable resource and not a government controlled marketing  wet dream</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's time we made some changes because ISP 's are becoming overtly hostile to their users.plain http is not good enough anymore.I spent the day working round a block on a file on a uk website the file transfer started and after 34k it stopped.A friend has a website and the easiest way to send me a file was to stick it on his server .
Again the file failed to transfer using eftp the file was transfered full speed.For eircom customers thepiratebay.org is a no go blocked entirely.Seems that if we wish to maintain the freedoms we have had over the years on the net we should be using encrypted protocols where ever possible and default to httpsOf course most people do n't realise how the Internet is being changed and its up to people like us to ensure it remains a valuable resource and not a government controlled marketing wet dream</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's time we made some changes because ISP's are becoming overtly hostile to their users.plain http is not good enough anymore.I spent the day working round a block on a file on a uk website the file transfer started and after 34k it stopped.A friend has a website and the easiest way to send me a file was to stick it on his server.
Again the file failed to transfer using eftp the file was transfered full speed.For eircom customers thepiratebay.org is a no go blocked entirely.Seems that if we wish to maintain the freedoms we have had over the years on the net we should be using encrypted protocols where ever possible and default to httpsOf course most people don't realise how the Internet is being changed and its up to people like us to ensure it remains a valuable resource and not a government controlled marketing  wet dream</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825220</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30828176
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30827168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30827068
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825688
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30827192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30827028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30832034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30829046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_19_2138215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2138215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2138215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2138215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30827068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2138215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2138215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825844
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826738
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825626
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30827168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825876
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30828176
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30827028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825452
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30827192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30826676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2138215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825444
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2138215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30829046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30832034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_19_2138215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_19_2138215.30825864
</commentlist>
</conversation>
