<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_24_1518213</id>
	<title>Surveillance Backdoor Enabled Chinese Gmail Attack?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1264349880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Major Blud writes <i>"CNN is running an opinion piece on their front page from security technologist Bruce Schneier, in which he suggests that 'In order to comply with government search warrants on user data, Google <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.google.hacking/index.html">created a backdoor access system into Gmail accounts</a>. This feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access.' His article is short on sources, and the common belief is that <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/15/0013239/IE-0-Day-Flaw-Used-In-Chinese-Attack">a flaw in IE</a> was the main attack method.  Has this come up elsewhere? Schneier continues, 'Whether the eavesdroppers are the good guys or the bad guys, these systems put us all at greater risk. Communications systems that have no inherent eavesdropping capabilities are more secure than systems with those capabilities built in. And it's bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Major Blud writes " CNN is running an opinion piece on their front page from security technologist Bruce Schneier , in which he suggests that 'In order to comply with government search warrants on user data , Google created a backdoor access system into Gmail accounts .
This feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access .
' His article is short on sources , and the common belief is that a flaw in IE was the main attack method .
Has this come up elsewhere ?
Schneier continues , 'Whether the eavesdroppers are the good guys or the bad guys , these systems put us all at greater risk .
Communications systems that have no inherent eavesdropping capabilities are more secure than systems with those capabilities built in .
And it 's bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Major Blud writes "CNN is running an opinion piece on their front page from security technologist Bruce Schneier, in which he suggests that 'In order to comply with government search warrants on user data, Google created a backdoor access system into Gmail accounts.
This feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access.
' His article is short on sources, and the common belief is that a flaw in IE was the main attack method.
Has this come up elsewhere?
Schneier continues, 'Whether the eavesdroppers are the good guys or the bad guys, these systems put us all at greater risk.
Communications systems that have no inherent eavesdropping capabilities are more secure than systems with those capabilities built in.
And it's bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30881274</id>
	<title>Re:At least Google wasn't running IE 6</title>
	<author>The FBI</author>
	<datestamp>1264365900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now I just need to find something to make me feel better about our government</p></div><p>The FBI has just removed <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/greghullender" title="linkedin.com" rel="nofollow">your linkedin.com profile</a> [linkedin.com] to protect your privacy and make you feel better about our government. We hope that helps.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I just need to find something to make me feel better about our governmentThe FBI has just removed your linkedin.com profile [ linkedin.com ] to protect your privacy and make you feel better about our government .
We hope that helps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I just need to find something to make me feel better about our governmentThe FBI has just removed your linkedin.com profile [linkedin.com] to protect your privacy and make you feel better about our government.
We hope that helps.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992</id>
	<title>Careful There, Schneier</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264353840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>His article is short on sources</p></div><p>Agreed so I visited his blog and <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/me\_on\_chinese\_h.html" title="schneier.com">a recent post is equally scant</a> [schneier.com].  He points back to <a href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/01/google\_vs\_china.html" title="schneier.com">another blog post with a <i>little</i> more</a> [schneier.com] but really he's just pointing out the irony of a new proposed bill outlawing Google's collaboration with China in violating human rights issues.  The irony being that the US has asked for similar backdoors from Google already.  <br> <br>

So here's my problem: More frequently Schneier <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/04/144240/Secret-Copyright-Treaty-Leaks-Its-Bad-Very-Bad" title="slashdot.org">acts as a reputable news source 'breaking' a story</a> [slashdot.org] without citing the originator of the information.  This is fine when it's a big paper like the New York Times but Schneier runs a blog on security.  That's it.  He might be a first hand expert but if so why isn't he showing and describing his conclusive evidence that the US mandated backdoor is how Chinese hackers gained entry?  There's no doubt the software is less secure with a backdoor -- by definition -- but when he says:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In order to comply with government search warrants on user data, Google  created a backdoor access system into Gmail accounts. This feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access.</p></div><p>He better be able to back it up.  And he reiterates:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>China's  hackers subverted the access system Google put in place to comply with U.S. intercept orders.</p></div><p>I just want to caution everyone that you're reading an opinion piece by a security blogger with no corroborating evidence.  And on top of that, he has zero accountability.  In fact, he says none of this on his blog, he leaves it as an op-ed on CNN.  Read it like a strange click generating opinion piece and nothing more.  <br> <br>I have respect for the man but this certainly shakes that.  Any concrete proof of this would be welcomed.  The problem is I'm not sure how one would prove it one way or the other since I believe all the source in question is closed source to begin with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>His article is short on sourcesAgreed so I visited his blog and a recent post is equally scant [ schneier.com ] .
He points back to another blog post with a little more [ schneier.com ] but really he 's just pointing out the irony of a new proposed bill outlawing Google 's collaboration with China in violating human rights issues .
The irony being that the US has asked for similar backdoors from Google already .
So here 's my problem : More frequently Schneier acts as a reputable news source 'breaking ' a story [ slashdot.org ] without citing the originator of the information .
This is fine when it 's a big paper like the New York Times but Schneier runs a blog on security .
That 's it .
He might be a first hand expert but if so why is n't he showing and describing his conclusive evidence that the US mandated backdoor is how Chinese hackers gained entry ?
There 's no doubt the software is less secure with a backdoor -- by definition -- but when he says : In order to comply with government search warrants on user data , Google created a backdoor access system into Gmail accounts .
This feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access.He better be able to back it up .
And he reiterates : China 's hackers subverted the access system Google put in place to comply with U.S. intercept orders.I just want to caution everyone that you 're reading an opinion piece by a security blogger with no corroborating evidence .
And on top of that , he has zero accountability .
In fact , he says none of this on his blog , he leaves it as an op-ed on CNN .
Read it like a strange click generating opinion piece and nothing more .
I have respect for the man but this certainly shakes that .
Any concrete proof of this would be welcomed .
The problem is I 'm not sure how one would prove it one way or the other since I believe all the source in question is closed source to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His article is short on sourcesAgreed so I visited his blog and a recent post is equally scant [schneier.com].
He points back to another blog post with a little more [schneier.com] but really he's just pointing out the irony of a new proposed bill outlawing Google's collaboration with China in violating human rights issues.
The irony being that the US has asked for similar backdoors from Google already.
So here's my problem: More frequently Schneier acts as a reputable news source 'breaking' a story [slashdot.org] without citing the originator of the information.
This is fine when it's a big paper like the New York Times but Schneier runs a blog on security.
That's it.
He might be a first hand expert but if so why isn't he showing and describing his conclusive evidence that the US mandated backdoor is how Chinese hackers gained entry?
There's no doubt the software is less secure with a backdoor -- by definition -- but when he says:In order to comply with government search warrants on user data, Google  created a backdoor access system into Gmail accounts.
This feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access.He better be able to back it up.
And he reiterates:China's  hackers subverted the access system Google put in place to comply with U.S. intercept orders.I just want to caution everyone that you're reading an opinion piece by a security blogger with no corroborating evidence.
And on top of that, he has zero accountability.
In fact, he says none of this on his blog, he leaves it as an op-ed on CNN.
Read it like a strange click generating opinion piece and nothing more.
I have respect for the man but this certainly shakes that.
Any concrete proof of this would be welcomed.
The problem is I'm not sure how one would prove it one way or the other since I believe all the source in question is closed source to begin with.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878982</id>
	<title>Correlation does not imply causation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264353720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Larry &amp; Sergey To Cash In $5.5B of Google Chips</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Larry &amp; Sergey To Cash In $ 5.5B of Google Chips</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Larry &amp; Sergey To Cash In $5.5B of Google Chips</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879312</id>
	<title>Re:Careful There, Schneier</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264355580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>&gt; The problem is I'm not sure how one would prove it one way or the other since I believe all the source in question is closed source to begin with.</i> </p><p>I can't prove it is there but I know it is.</p><p>A year so ago I was under consideration for a position with a defense firm looking to beef up for the coming Cyber War feeding frenzy.  A half hour after I signed my life away on the clearance background checks and such they started asking questions that sounded oddly familiar.  After two or three questions I realized they had read some Blogger posts (on technical issues) that I had written and saved in draft.  I had never published a single thing from that Blogger account but it did have my name attached to it.  I probably shouldn't have been freaked out - they were interviewing me for what was essentially a hacking position - but I was.  I was so distracted for the rest of the interview that I didn't get the job.  I couldn't shake the question of "What the fuck am I getting into here?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The problem is I 'm not sure how one would prove it one way or the other since I believe all the source in question is closed source to begin with .
I ca n't prove it is there but I know it is.A year so ago I was under consideration for a position with a defense firm looking to beef up for the coming Cyber War feeding frenzy .
A half hour after I signed my life away on the clearance background checks and such they started asking questions that sounded oddly familiar .
After two or three questions I realized they had read some Blogger posts ( on technical issues ) that I had written and saved in draft .
I had never published a single thing from that Blogger account but it did have my name attached to it .
I probably should n't have been freaked out - they were interviewing me for what was essentially a hacking position - but I was .
I was so distracted for the rest of the interview that I did n't get the job .
I could n't shake the question of " What the fuck am I getting into here ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> &gt; The problem is I'm not sure how one would prove it one way or the other since I believe all the source in question is closed source to begin with.
I can't prove it is there but I know it is.A year so ago I was under consideration for a position with a defense firm looking to beef up for the coming Cyber War feeding frenzy.
A half hour after I signed my life away on the clearance background checks and such they started asking questions that sounded oddly familiar.
After two or three questions I realized they had read some Blogger posts (on technical issues) that I had written and saved in draft.
I had never published a single thing from that Blogger account but it did have my name attached to it.
I probably shouldn't have been freaked out - they were interviewing me for what was essentially a hacking position - but I was.
I was so distracted for the rest of the interview that I didn't get the job.
I couldn't shake the question of "What the fuck am I getting into here?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879512</id>
	<title>It's opinion</title>
	<author>cheros</author>
	<datestamp>1264357020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However, I agree with you.</p><p>I think that even for a guy who is so good at self marketing as Schneier this is a <b> <i>WAY</i> </b> too obvious attempt to grab publicity as well as sound off over his hobby topic.  I'm not saying he's right or wrong (as I do not have access to facts on either side of the argument), I just think this is a diplomatic spat brought on by Google execs because they want to sell stock.</p><p>I would shut up until the politicians have stopped playing, but I think he's trying to ride the publiciy, and it makes me wonder why.  Is he about to sell BT stock?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , I agree with you.I think that even for a guy who is so good at self marketing as Schneier this is a WAY too obvious attempt to grab publicity as well as sound off over his hobby topic .
I 'm not saying he 's right or wrong ( as I do not have access to facts on either side of the argument ) , I just think this is a diplomatic spat brought on by Google execs because they want to sell stock.I would shut up until the politicians have stopped playing , but I think he 's trying to ride the publiciy , and it makes me wonder why .
Is he about to sell BT stock ?
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, I agree with you.I think that even for a guy who is so good at self marketing as Schneier this is a  WAY  too obvious attempt to grab publicity as well as sound off over his hobby topic.
I'm not saying he's right or wrong (as I do not have access to facts on either side of the argument), I just think this is a diplomatic spat brought on by Google execs because they want to sell stock.I would shut up until the politicians have stopped playing, but I think he's trying to ride the publiciy, and it makes me wonder why.
Is he about to sell BT stock?
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880984</id>
	<title>Re:Careful There, Schneier</title>
	<author>wtbname</author>
	<datestamp>1264364280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are a little bit stupid. You are a whole lot of politics. Your points don't really make sense. Your conclusions are badly thought out. Your citations are meaningless.</p><p>There are 130 citations in your CBS Dan Rather screws up link. Disregarding that, you note that "because they didn't authenticate, they got some serious negative press". That. Is. Not. The. Point. They attempted, knowingly, on purpose, with intent, to influence the presidential elections. They used falsified documents to do so. Name through the mud? They should have been shot.</p><p>Next paragraph, you'd buy it until they were caught relaying lies? Seriously? You don't think "buying" it is a little naive? Maybe you should, as one of the previous posters indicated, apply critical thinking to all of your news sources. Maybe that might help you out with the problems I listed above.</p><p>And then you just randomly bash Fox News? Really? Fox News is shit, but we don't need morons like you telling us so. Did you read the god damn decision? It does more than just put quotation marks around "law, rule or regulation". IT FOLLOWED THE LAW YOU MORON. OH HEY LOOK THE JUDGE READ THE LAW AND THEN RULED APPROPRIATELY. Even worse, your wikipedia "citation" (see what I did there?) provides four links. Two of them are the same court document that state, yeah, Fox news appealed the verdict in question, and won. One citation is an autobiography (are you kidding me?), and the last is a Source Watch link that duplicates the wikipedia article? I can search on google for "Fox News Sucks" <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=fox+news+sucks" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?q=fox+news+sucks</a> [google.com] and find better material than your stupid ass is citing.</p><p>Fuck off.</p><p>PS: Every time i read your post I get a little less angry, and a little more sad<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;( You sadden me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are a little bit stupid .
You are a whole lot of politics .
Your points do n't really make sense .
Your conclusions are badly thought out .
Your citations are meaningless.There are 130 citations in your CBS Dan Rather screws up link .
Disregarding that , you note that " because they did n't authenticate , they got some serious negative press " .
That. Is .
Not. The .
Point. They attempted , knowingly , on purpose , with intent , to influence the presidential elections .
They used falsified documents to do so .
Name through the mud ?
They should have been shot.Next paragraph , you 'd buy it until they were caught relaying lies ?
Seriously ? You do n't think " buying " it is a little naive ?
Maybe you should , as one of the previous posters indicated , apply critical thinking to all of your news sources .
Maybe that might help you out with the problems I listed above.And then you just randomly bash Fox News ?
Really ? Fox News is shit , but we do n't need morons like you telling us so .
Did you read the god damn decision ?
It does more than just put quotation marks around " law , rule or regulation " .
IT FOLLOWED THE LAW YOU MORON .
OH HEY LOOK THE JUDGE READ THE LAW AND THEN RULED APPROPRIATELY .
Even worse , your wikipedia " citation " ( see what I did there ?
) provides four links .
Two of them are the same court document that state , yeah , Fox news appealed the verdict in question , and won .
One citation is an autobiography ( are you kidding me ?
) , and the last is a Source Watch link that duplicates the wikipedia article ?
I can search on google for " Fox News Sucks " http : //www.google.com/search ? q = fox + news + sucks [ google.com ] and find better material than your stupid ass is citing.Fuck off.PS : Every time i read your post I get a little less angry , and a little more sad ; ( You sadden me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are a little bit stupid.
You are a whole lot of politics.
Your points don't really make sense.
Your conclusions are badly thought out.
Your citations are meaningless.There are 130 citations in your CBS Dan Rather screws up link.
Disregarding that, you note that "because they didn't authenticate, they got some serious negative press".
That. Is.
Not. The.
Point. They attempted, knowingly, on purpose, with intent, to influence the presidential elections.
They used falsified documents to do so.
Name through the mud?
They should have been shot.Next paragraph, you'd buy it until they were caught relaying lies?
Seriously? You don't think "buying" it is a little naive?
Maybe you should, as one of the previous posters indicated, apply critical thinking to all of your news sources.
Maybe that might help you out with the problems I listed above.And then you just randomly bash Fox News?
Really? Fox News is shit, but we don't need morons like you telling us so.
Did you read the god damn decision?
It does more than just put quotation marks around "law, rule or regulation".
IT FOLLOWED THE LAW YOU MORON.
OH HEY LOOK THE JUDGE READ THE LAW AND THEN RULED APPROPRIATELY.
Even worse, your wikipedia "citation" (see what I did there?
) provides four links.
Two of them are the same court document that state, yeah, Fox news appealed the verdict in question, and won.
One citation is an autobiography (are you kidding me?
), and the last is a Source Watch link that duplicates the wikipedia article?
I can search on google for "Fox News Sucks" http://www.google.com/search?q=fox+news+sucks [google.com] and find better material than your stupid ass is citing.Fuck off.PS: Every time i read your post I get a little less angry, and a little more sad ;( You sadden me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879474</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880236</id>
	<title>Re:really...</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1264360740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hmmm, a hosted email system is a bazaar, not a cathedral.  There are no doors or walls to speak of, much like Haiti after the earthquake...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm , a hosted email system is a bazaar , not a cathedral .
There are no doors or walls to speak of , much like Haiti after the earthquake.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm, a hosted email system is a bazaar, not a cathedral.
There are no doors or walls to speak of, much like Haiti after the earthquake...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879008</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880960</id>
	<title>Re:Careful There, Schneier</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264364160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an illustration of the dangers of trusting "reputable" news sources like papers:<br>Do you remember that newspaper article that was all over the papers (and even on the BBC) about how blonde women were more aggressive and had more of a sense of entitlement than others? Well, it turns out that the original research was about whether strong people (people! not women) were more or less assertive (i.e. whether the Napoleon aphorism is true - turns out it isn't). A news reporter then asked the researchers whether that meant blondes were more aggressive. The researchers crunched some numbers and told the reporter "no". The reporter then wrote an article with a headline like "blonde women more aggressive". And then everyone copied that.<br>The sad thing is, after the lie got exposed, none of the papers I read reported on that. The original article was on the front page of the science section in many, so the scandal should be of similar notability and importance but no, silence. Only the BBC went back and made changes, but the changed article still doesn't correspond to the original research and it looks like the changes were made more to try to save face than to inform the public. Shameful.<br>Honestly, sometimes I think you're better informed if you don't watch the news and don't read the papers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an illustration of the dangers of trusting " reputable " news sources like papers : Do you remember that newspaper article that was all over the papers ( and even on the BBC ) about how blonde women were more aggressive and had more of a sense of entitlement than others ?
Well , it turns out that the original research was about whether strong people ( people !
not women ) were more or less assertive ( i.e .
whether the Napoleon aphorism is true - turns out it is n't ) .
A news reporter then asked the researchers whether that meant blondes were more aggressive .
The researchers crunched some numbers and told the reporter " no " .
The reporter then wrote an article with a headline like " blonde women more aggressive " .
And then everyone copied that.The sad thing is , after the lie got exposed , none of the papers I read reported on that .
The original article was on the front page of the science section in many , so the scandal should be of similar notability and importance but no , silence .
Only the BBC went back and made changes , but the changed article still does n't correspond to the original research and it looks like the changes were made more to try to save face than to inform the public .
Shameful.Honestly , sometimes I think you 're better informed if you do n't watch the news and do n't read the papers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an illustration of the dangers of trusting "reputable" news sources like papers:Do you remember that newspaper article that was all over the papers (and even on the BBC) about how blonde women were more aggressive and had more of a sense of entitlement than others?
Well, it turns out that the original research was about whether strong people (people!
not women) were more or less assertive (i.e.
whether the Napoleon aphorism is true - turns out it isn't).
A news reporter then asked the researchers whether that meant blondes were more aggressive.
The researchers crunched some numbers and told the reporter "no".
The reporter then wrote an article with a headline like "blonde women more aggressive".
And then everyone copied that.The sad thing is, after the lie got exposed, none of the papers I read reported on that.
The original article was on the front page of the science section in many, so the scandal should be of similar notability and importance but no, silence.
Only the BBC went back and made changes, but the changed article still doesn't correspond to the original research and it looks like the changes were made more to try to save face than to inform the public.
Shameful.Honestly, sometimes I think you're better informed if you don't watch the news and don't read the papers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879174</id>
	<title>Missing the real issues</title>
	<author>etymxris</author>
	<datestamp>1264354860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The backdoor in question is likely only available on Google's internal network. If it's guarded by VPN, this is fairly secure. Of course, there are many ways to hack into a company's internal network, as the Chinese hack demonstrates. But the law enforcement interface isn't uniquely problematic in this regard. Once you're into the internal network, there are all types of things you can do.</p><p>The <b>real</b> problem here is pen register taps, and it's application to email. The police can get as much "traffic analysis" information as they want <b>without a warrant</b>. This law enforcement interface was designed to allow easy access to this information, further invading our privacy through warrantless activities.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>* All email header information other than the subject line, including the email addresses of the people to whom you send email, the email addresses of people that send to you, the time each email is sent or received, and the size of each email that is sent or received.<br>* Your IP (Internet Protocol) address and the IP address of other computers on the Internet that you exchange information with, with timestamp and size information.<br>* The communications ports and protocols used, which can be used to determine what types of communications you are sending using what types of applications.</p></div><p> <a href="https://ssd.eff.org/wire/govt/pen-registers" title="eff.org" rel="nofollow">From the EFF</a> [eff.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The backdoor in question is likely only available on Google 's internal network .
If it 's guarded by VPN , this is fairly secure .
Of course , there are many ways to hack into a company 's internal network , as the Chinese hack demonstrates .
But the law enforcement interface is n't uniquely problematic in this regard .
Once you 're into the internal network , there are all types of things you can do.The real problem here is pen register taps , and it 's application to email .
The police can get as much " traffic analysis " information as they want without a warrant .
This law enforcement interface was designed to allow easy access to this information , further invading our privacy through warrantless activities .
* All email header information other than the subject line , including the email addresses of the people to whom you send email , the email addresses of people that send to you , the time each email is sent or received , and the size of each email that is sent or received .
* Your IP ( Internet Protocol ) address and the IP address of other computers on the Internet that you exchange information with , with timestamp and size information .
* The communications ports and protocols used , which can be used to determine what types of communications you are sending using what types of applications .
From the EFF [ eff.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The backdoor in question is likely only available on Google's internal network.
If it's guarded by VPN, this is fairly secure.
Of course, there are many ways to hack into a company's internal network, as the Chinese hack demonstrates.
But the law enforcement interface isn't uniquely problematic in this regard.
Once you're into the internal network, there are all types of things you can do.The real problem here is pen register taps, and it's application to email.
The police can get as much "traffic analysis" information as they want without a warrant.
This law enforcement interface was designed to allow easy access to this information, further invading our privacy through warrantless activities.
* All email header information other than the subject line, including the email addresses of the people to whom you send email, the email addresses of people that send to you, the time each email is sent or received, and the size of each email that is sent or received.
* Your IP (Internet Protocol) address and the IP address of other computers on the Internet that you exchange information with, with timestamp and size information.
* The communications ports and protocols used, which can be used to determine what types of communications you are sending using what types of applications.
From the EFF [eff.org].
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30883200</id>
	<title>defective by design</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264334340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so, even google is defective by design?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so , even google is defective by design ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so, even google is defective by design?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879474</id>
	<title>Re:Careful There, Schneier</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1264356720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>So here's my problem: More frequently Schneier <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/04/144240/Secret-Copyright-Treaty-Leaks-Its-Bad-Very-Bad" title="slashdot.org">acts as a reputable news source 'breaking' a story</a> [slashdot.org] without citing the originator of the information.  This is fine when it's a big paper like the New York Times but Schneier runs a blog on security.  That's it.</p></div><p>So what makes it ok for a "big paper like the New York Times" to publish unsubstantiated claims?  We shouldn't disengage our critical thinking regardless of the source.</p></div><p>That's not at all what I meant.  I meant it was okay because they get caught.  Take for instance the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian\_documents\_controversy" title="wikipedia.org">CBS Dan Rather screw up with Bush's documents</a> [wikipedia.org].  Because they didn't authenticate they got some serious negative press.  Do you think that Schneier faces the same sort of name-through-the-mud charges if he prints something unauthenticated?  It's the journalistic integrity that the Times must uphold to remain a viable newspaper that Schneier is not facing.  He's just a blog, after all.  <br> <br>

If the New York Times broke this and said they had a source but were protecting their anonymity, I'd buy it.  I'd buy it right up until they were caught relaying lies and then I'd take their news with a grain of salt from that point on.  <br> <br>

It's the reason why <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane\_Akre" title="wikipedia.org">I don't anything from Fox News affiliates</a> [wikipedia.org] and avoid them altogether.  They proved they have no (maybe even negative if that's possible) journalistic integrity.  When providing the news is your source of income you should protect that at all costs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So here 's my problem : More frequently Schneier acts as a reputable news source 'breaking ' a story [ slashdot.org ] without citing the originator of the information .
This is fine when it 's a big paper like the New York Times but Schneier runs a blog on security .
That 's it.So what makes it ok for a " big paper like the New York Times " to publish unsubstantiated claims ?
We should n't disengage our critical thinking regardless of the source.That 's not at all what I meant .
I meant it was okay because they get caught .
Take for instance the CBS Dan Rather screw up with Bush 's documents [ wikipedia.org ] .
Because they did n't authenticate they got some serious negative press .
Do you think that Schneier faces the same sort of name-through-the-mud charges if he prints something unauthenticated ?
It 's the journalistic integrity that the Times must uphold to remain a viable newspaper that Schneier is not facing .
He 's just a blog , after all .
If the New York Times broke this and said they had a source but were protecting their anonymity , I 'd buy it .
I 'd buy it right up until they were caught relaying lies and then I 'd take their news with a grain of salt from that point on .
It 's the reason why I do n't anything from Fox News affiliates [ wikipedia.org ] and avoid them altogether .
They proved they have no ( maybe even negative if that 's possible ) journalistic integrity .
When providing the news is your source of income you should protect that at all costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So here's my problem: More frequently Schneier acts as a reputable news source 'breaking' a story [slashdot.org] without citing the originator of the information.
This is fine when it's a big paper like the New York Times but Schneier runs a blog on security.
That's it.So what makes it ok for a "big paper like the New York Times" to publish unsubstantiated claims?
We shouldn't disengage our critical thinking regardless of the source.That's not at all what I meant.
I meant it was okay because they get caught.
Take for instance the CBS Dan Rather screw up with Bush's documents [wikipedia.org].
Because they didn't authenticate they got some serious negative press.
Do you think that Schneier faces the same sort of name-through-the-mud charges if he prints something unauthenticated?
It's the journalistic integrity that the Times must uphold to remain a viable newspaper that Schneier is not facing.
He's just a blog, after all.
If the New York Times broke this and said they had a source but were protecting their anonymity, I'd buy it.
I'd buy it right up until they were caught relaying lies and then I'd take their news with a grain of salt from that point on.
It's the reason why I don't anything from Fox News affiliates [wikipedia.org] and avoid them altogether.
They proved they have no (maybe even negative if that's possible) journalistic integrity.
When providing the news is your source of income you should protect that at all costs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879392</id>
	<title>Google's internal security vulnerbilities</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264356180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>  This is congruent with another report   that mentioned<br>
&nbsp; Google  put its Google China staff on paid leave and<br>suspended their access after the incident:</p><p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jan/18/china-google-cyber-attack" title="guardian.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jan/18/china-google-cyber-attack</a> [guardian.co.uk]</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; A lot of evidence points into google treating it as an internal security leak<br>, and is conducting an internal audit on all its China employee. It seems<br>Google has very good external security but is very vulnerable from inside<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.In the hacking  very likely some google China employee was found to have leaked<br>information that facilitate the attack. And that explain Google management's fury<br>
&nbsp; as it would be a moment as shocking for them as the<br>&ldquo;Cambridge Five&rdquo; for British government .</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Firstly it would mean Google can no longer count on its Chinese<br>employee&rsquo;s loyalty when it clashes with their loyalty to China, so if<br>it wants to operate in China it has to continue with a tainted staff, though that<br>should have been expected for any corporation operating in a foreign country.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Secondly it would mean there are serious security loopholes in Google<br>internal management as it failed to implement a safety mechanism to<br>check or limit inside attack.It this is true, pile on the fact that<br>Google is already facing increasing privacy scrutiny in the US and<br>Europe,it would be a heavy blow to Google&rsquo;s reputation as a whole as<br>it sends out the message that Google cannot be trusted with your data<br>IN ANY COUNTRY.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; In my opinion  Google failed to take care of its own fences,However<br>
&nbsp; Google&rsquo;s genius lies in politicizing this incident<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,as<br>it completely shadows the question of Google&rsquo;s own internal security<br>vulnerability, as evidenced by the blanket omitting of this question<br>in most of the news reports I have seen.It became a Good vs Evil in the news ,<br>and you cannot  criticizing Good ole Google<br>without being grouped with the Evil Chinese Communist, can you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is congruent with another report that mentioned   Google put its Google China staff on paid leave andsuspended their access after the incident : http : //www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jan/18/china-google-cyber-attack [ guardian.co.uk ]       A lot of evidence points into google treating it as an internal security leak , and is conducting an internal audit on all its China employee .
It seemsGoogle has very good external security but is very vulnerable from inside .In the hacking very likely some google China employee was found to have leakedinformation that facilitate the attack .
And that explain Google management 's fury   as it would be a moment as shocking for them as the    Cambridge Five    for British government .
    Firstly it would mean Google can no longer count on its Chineseemployee    s loyalty when it clashes with their loyalty to China , so ifit wants to operate in China it has to continue with a tainted staff , though thatshould have been expected for any corporation operating in a foreign country .
    Secondly it would mean there are serious security loopholes in Googleinternal management as it failed to implement a safety mechanism tocheck or limit inside attack.It this is true , pile on the fact thatGoogle is already facing increasing privacy scrutiny in the US andEurope,it would be a heavy blow to Google    s reputation as a whole asit sends out the message that Google can not be trusted with your dataIN ANY COUNTRY .
    In my opinion Google failed to take care of its own fences,However   Google    s genius lies in politicizing this incident ,asit completely shadows the question of Google    s own internal securityvulnerability , as evidenced by the blanket omitting of this questionin most of the news reports I have seen.It became a Good vs Evil in the news ,and you can not criticizing Good ole Googlewithout being grouped with the Evil Chinese Communist , can you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  This is congruent with another report   that mentioned
  Google  put its Google China staff on paid leave andsuspended their access after the incident:http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jan/18/china-google-cyber-attack [guardian.co.uk]
      A lot of evidence points into google treating it as an internal security leak, and is conducting an internal audit on all its China employee.
It seemsGoogle has very good external security but is very vulnerable from inside .In the hacking  very likely some google China employee was found to have leakedinformation that facilitate the attack.
And that explain Google management's fury
  as it would be a moment as shocking for them as the“Cambridge Five” for British government .
    Firstly it would mean Google can no longer count on its Chineseemployee’s loyalty when it clashes with their loyalty to China, so ifit wants to operate in China it has to continue with a tainted staff, though thatshould have been expected for any corporation operating in a foreign country.
    Secondly it would mean there are serious security loopholes in Googleinternal management as it failed to implement a safety mechanism tocheck or limit inside attack.It this is true, pile on the fact thatGoogle is already facing increasing privacy scrutiny in the US andEurope,it would be a heavy blow to Google’s reputation as a whole asit sends out the message that Google cannot be trusted with your dataIN ANY COUNTRY.
    In my opinion  Google failed to take care of its own fences,However
  Google’s genius lies in politicizing this incident ,asit completely shadows the question of Google’s own internal securityvulnerability, as evidenced by the blanket omitting of this questionin most of the news reports I have seen.It became a Good vs Evil in the news ,and you cannot  criticizing Good ole Googlewithout being grouped with the Evil Chinese Communist, can you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879192</id>
	<title>ANY tech can be used to facilitate a police state</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264354920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As long as you do not place restrictions on your executive branch, anything can be used to facilitate a police state.  If a cop has unrestricted rights to search you, your days of privacy are over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as you do not place restrictions on your executive branch , anything can be used to facilitate a police state .
If a cop has unrestricted rights to search you , your days of privacy are over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as you do not place restrictions on your executive branch, anything can be used to facilitate a police state.
If a cop has unrestricted rights to search you, your days of privacy are over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879586</id>
	<title>Here's another early source of speculation</title>
	<author>peterwayner</author>
	<datestamp>1264357560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/13/surveillance-secruity-and-the-google-breach/" title="cato-at-liberty.org">http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/13/surveillance-secruity-and-the-google-breach/</a> [cato-at-liberty.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/13/surveillance-secruity-and-the-google-breach/ [ cato-at-liberty.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/13/surveillance-secruity-and-the-google-breach/ [cato-at-liberty.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880178</id>
	<title>Re:Careful There, Schneier</title>
	<author>DeadPixels</author>
	<datestamp>1264360500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's partially right, but equally wrong.<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9144221/Google\_attack\_part\_of\_widespread\_spying\_effort" title="computerworld.com">Computer World</a> [computerworld.com] quotes an anonymous source "familiar with the situation" as saying:<p><div class="quote"><p>That's because they apparently were able to access a system used to help Google comply with search warrants by providing data on Google users, said a source familiar with the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the press. "Right before Christmas, it was, 'Holy s***, this malware is accessing the internal intercept [systems],'" he said.</p> </div><p> According to that article, what Google had was an internal system that could pull limited amounts of account information to comply with law enforcement requests, <b>not</b> a backdoor that gave access to the account in question. Also, it appears that the malware/attack in question didn't "subvert the system" so much as it piggybacked onto a computer with access and got in that way.<br> <br>So while he's right as to the general purpose of the system, he seems to be pretty wrong as far as the scope of the 'backdoor'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's partially right , but equally wrong .
Computer World [ computerworld.com ] quotes an anonymous source " familiar with the situation " as saying : That 's because they apparently were able to access a system used to help Google comply with search warrants by providing data on Google users , said a source familiar with the situation , who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the press .
" Right before Christmas , it was , 'Holy s * * * , this malware is accessing the internal intercept [ systems ] , ' " he said .
According to that article , what Google had was an internal system that could pull limited amounts of account information to comply with law enforcement requests , not a backdoor that gave access to the account in question .
Also , it appears that the malware/attack in question did n't " subvert the system " so much as it piggybacked onto a computer with access and got in that way .
So while he 's right as to the general purpose of the system , he seems to be pretty wrong as far as the scope of the 'backdoor' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's partially right, but equally wrong.
Computer World [computerworld.com] quotes an anonymous source "familiar with the situation" as saying:That's because they apparently were able to access a system used to help Google comply with search warrants by providing data on Google users, said a source familiar with the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the press.
"Right before Christmas, it was, 'Holy s***, this malware is accessing the internal intercept [systems],'" he said.
According to that article, what Google had was an internal system that could pull limited amounts of account information to comply with law enforcement requests, not a backdoor that gave access to the account in question.
Also, it appears that the malware/attack in question didn't "subvert the system" so much as it piggybacked onto a computer with access and got in that way.
So while he's right as to the general purpose of the system, he seems to be pretty wrong as far as the scope of the 'backdoor'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879318</id>
	<title>Re:Careful There, Schneier</title>
	<author>PugPappa</author>
	<datestamp>1264355640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So here's my problem: More frequently Schneier <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/11/04/144240/Secret-Copyright-Treaty-Leaks-Its-Bad-Very-Bad" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">acts as a reputable news source 'breaking' a story</a> [slashdot.org] without citing the originator of the information.  This is fine when it's a big paper like the New York Times but Schneier runs a blog on security.  That's it.</p>  </div><p>So what makes it ok for a "big paper like the New York Times" to publish unsubstantiated claims?  We shouldn't disengage our critical thinking regardless of the source.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So here 's my problem : More frequently Schneier acts as a reputable news source 'breaking ' a story [ slashdot.org ] without citing the originator of the information .
This is fine when it 's a big paper like the New York Times but Schneier runs a blog on security .
That 's it .
So what makes it ok for a " big paper like the New York Times " to publish unsubstantiated claims ?
We should n't disengage our critical thinking regardless of the source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So here's my problem: More frequently Schneier acts as a reputable news source 'breaking' a story [slashdot.org] without citing the originator of the information.
This is fine when it's a big paper like the New York Times but Schneier runs a blog on security.
That's it.
So what makes it ok for a "big paper like the New York Times" to publish unsubstantiated claims?
We shouldn't disengage our critical thinking regardless of the source.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880224</id>
	<title>Re:It's opinion</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1264360740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I just think this is a diplomatic spat brought on by Google execs because<br>&gt; they want to sell stock.</p><p>They want to depress the price just before they start selling?  Sure.  That makes a lot of sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I just think this is a diplomatic spat brought on by Google execs because &gt; they want to sell stock.They want to depress the price just before they start selling ?
Sure. That makes a lot of sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I just think this is a diplomatic spat brought on by Google execs because&gt; they want to sell stock.They want to depress the price just before they start selling?
Sure.  That makes a lot of sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879518</id>
	<title>Re:Careful There, Schneier</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264357080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you a govie[1]? Do you have something to hide?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Govie</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you a govie [ 1 ] ?
Do you have something to hide ?
: - ) [ 1 ] http : //www.urbandictionary.com/define.php ? term = Govie</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you a govie[1]?
Do you have something to hide?
:-)[1] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Govie</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879762</id>
	<title>Come-on on guys</title>
	<author>Stan92057</author>
	<datestamp>1264358640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Come-on on guys, just what do you expect from a "Blogger" hes not a real news reporter he just states whats on his mind at the time. He works in security and is writing whats on his mind, thats what bloggers are/do.No proof necessary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Come-on on guys , just what do you expect from a " Blogger " hes not a real news reporter he just states whats on his mind at the time .
He works in security and is writing whats on his mind , thats what bloggers are/do.No proof necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come-on on guys, just what do you expect from a "Blogger" hes not a real news reporter he just states whats on his mind at the time.
He works in security and is writing whats on his mind, thats what bloggers are/do.No proof necessary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30888990</id>
	<title>Re:Careful There, Schneier</title>
	<author>datapharmer</author>
	<datestamp>1264430520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it was sprint, and it was not a backdoor it was a GPS locating service they gave them an open door to access.</htmltext>
<tokenext>it was sprint , and it was not a backdoor it was a GPS locating service they gave them an open door to access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it was sprint, and it was not a backdoor it was a GPS locating service they gave them an open door to access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879110</id>
	<title>Re:Careful There, Schneier</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264354620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If US government want and have these, why wouldn't China? It's not <i>that</i> far fetched, and it's probably better for Google to say it was some virus planted on their system rather than have news all over the internet that China has such in place too. And it could be that US operations didn't know about it, Google China is its independent operation after all and why they're maybe pulling off.</p><p>I think it was AT&amp;T or Verizon that we had<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. article recently about how US government used their backdoor <i>tons</i> of times to gather info and that it would had been impossible to handle manually. Why wouldn't Google, one of the largest US companies, have similar system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If US government want and have these , why would n't China ?
It 's not that far fetched , and it 's probably better for Google to say it was some virus planted on their system rather than have news all over the internet that China has such in place too .
And it could be that US operations did n't know about it , Google China is its independent operation after all and why they 're maybe pulling off.I think it was AT&amp;T or Verizon that we had / .
article recently about how US government used their backdoor tons of times to gather info and that it would had been impossible to handle manually .
Why would n't Google , one of the largest US companies , have similar system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If US government want and have these, why wouldn't China?
It's not that far fetched, and it's probably better for Google to say it was some virus planted on their system rather than have news all over the internet that China has such in place too.
And it could be that US operations didn't know about it, Google China is its independent operation after all and why they're maybe pulling off.I think it was AT&amp;T or Verizon that we had /.
article recently about how US government used their backdoor tons of times to gather info and that it would had been impossible to handle manually.
Why wouldn't Google, one of the largest US companies, have similar system?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30885952</id>
	<title>Re:Google's internal security vulnerbilities</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1264354140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With all respect to the many good Chinese, there are plenty of bad ones. Especially when it comes to money. Money gives status in China, and both are known to corrupt. China is unfortunately a very very corrupt country at the moment, and it wouldn't surprise me if those employees were simply paid off to provide such access.
</p><p>Almost every day I read in the local newspaper (in Hong Kong) about corrupt government officials being caught, and of course also corrupt businesspeople. There are always two sides to corruption. And if it is normal for the government being paid by businesses for favours, why wouldn't government officials pay off company employees for the same.
</p><p>For companies investing in China, trust in their employees is a major issue. You invest in a factory producing photo cameras, for example. Then it is quite commonplace that soon you see exact copies of your camera appear in the shops, with the exact same specifications and quality, just a lot cheaper. And it can very well be that those copies are made in your own factory in a second shift, after they are done producing your own orders. Or that the factory manager simply set up a second factory which is a copy of your own investment.
</p><p>So there being "internal security vulnerabilities" wouldn't surprise me. At all. Whether it's really national pride, or cold hard cash, or something else I can't tell, possibly a combination of it all. But with the current state of corruption in China well it's at the very least highly plausible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With all respect to the many good Chinese , there are plenty of bad ones .
Especially when it comes to money .
Money gives status in China , and both are known to corrupt .
China is unfortunately a very very corrupt country at the moment , and it would n't surprise me if those employees were simply paid off to provide such access .
Almost every day I read in the local newspaper ( in Hong Kong ) about corrupt government officials being caught , and of course also corrupt businesspeople .
There are always two sides to corruption .
And if it is normal for the government being paid by businesses for favours , why would n't government officials pay off company employees for the same .
For companies investing in China , trust in their employees is a major issue .
You invest in a factory producing photo cameras , for example .
Then it is quite commonplace that soon you see exact copies of your camera appear in the shops , with the exact same specifications and quality , just a lot cheaper .
And it can very well be that those copies are made in your own factory in a second shift , after they are done producing your own orders .
Or that the factory manager simply set up a second factory which is a copy of your own investment .
So there being " internal security vulnerabilities " would n't surprise me .
At all .
Whether it 's really national pride , or cold hard cash , or something else I ca n't tell , possibly a combination of it all .
But with the current state of corruption in China well it 's at the very least highly plausible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all respect to the many good Chinese, there are plenty of bad ones.
Especially when it comes to money.
Money gives status in China, and both are known to corrupt.
China is unfortunately a very very corrupt country at the moment, and it wouldn't surprise me if those employees were simply paid off to provide such access.
Almost every day I read in the local newspaper (in Hong Kong) about corrupt government officials being caught, and of course also corrupt businesspeople.
There are always two sides to corruption.
And if it is normal for the government being paid by businesses for favours, why wouldn't government officials pay off company employees for the same.
For companies investing in China, trust in their employees is a major issue.
You invest in a factory producing photo cameras, for example.
Then it is quite commonplace that soon you see exact copies of your camera appear in the shops, with the exact same specifications and quality, just a lot cheaper.
And it can very well be that those copies are made in your own factory in a second shift, after they are done producing your own orders.
Or that the factory manager simply set up a second factory which is a copy of your own investment.
So there being "internal security vulnerabilities" wouldn't surprise me.
At all.
Whether it's really national pride, or cold hard cash, or something else I can't tell, possibly a combination of it all.
But with the current state of corruption in China well it's at the very least highly plausible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879378</id>
	<title>At least Google wasn't running IE 6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264356060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This item makes me feel better about Microsoft AND Google!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
<p>
Seriously, it really does make a lot more sense. How could anyone at Google still be running IE 6?
</p><p>
--Greg (Now I just need to find something to make me feel better about our government)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This item makes me feel better about Microsoft AND Google !
: - ) Seriously , it really does make a lot more sense .
How could anyone at Google still be running IE 6 ?
--Greg ( Now I just need to find something to make me feel better about our government )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This item makes me feel better about Microsoft AND Google!
:-)

Seriously, it really does make a lot more sense.
How could anyone at Google still be running IE 6?
--Greg (Now I just need to find something to make me feel better about our government)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879938</id>
	<title>Re:The People's Responsibility</title>
	<author>aflag</author>
	<datestamp>1264359600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> (...) companies are supposed to tell the government "no" on their own? It's the people's responsibility (...)</p> </div><p>Companies are run by people. Companies do what people in charge want. Companies are there to help the public, not the other way around. I think it is indeed up to companies to openly state their political views and to work towards them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( ... ) companies are supposed to tell the government " no " on their own ?
It 's the people 's responsibility ( ... ) Companies are run by people .
Companies do what people in charge want .
Companies are there to help the public , not the other way around .
I think it is indeed up to companies to openly state their political views and to work towards them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> (...) companies are supposed to tell the government "no" on their own?
It's the people's responsibility (...) Companies are run by people.
Companies do what people in charge want.
Companies are there to help the public, not the other way around.
I think it is indeed up to companies to openly state their political views and to work towards them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30886872</id>
	<title>Don't Be Evil = Serve the People</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264449840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More on this from these earlier pieces:</p><p>http://www.motherboard.tv/2010/1/14/was-the-google-china-hack-an-inside-job--2</p><p>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-pasternack/dont-be-evil-vs-serve-the\_b\_425476.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More on this from these earlier pieces : http : //www.motherboard.tv/2010/1/14/was-the-google-china-hack-an-inside-job--2http : //www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-pasternack/dont-be-evil-vs-serve-the \ _b \ _425476.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More on this from these earlier pieces:http://www.motherboard.tv/2010/1/14/was-the-google-china-hack-an-inside-job--2http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-pasternack/dont-be-evil-vs-serve-the\_b\_425476.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879018</id>
	<title>From what I understand...</title>
	<author>benjic</author>
	<datestamp>1264354020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The whole telecommunications industry has been in bed with the government for years. Is it niave to think that data warehouses would be approached differently?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole telecommunications industry has been in bed with the government for years .
Is it niave to think that data warehouses would be approached differently ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole telecommunications industry has been in bed with the government for years.
Is it niave to think that data warehouses would be approached differently?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879040</id>
	<title>Not just short on sources</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1264354200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His article has zero citations supporting his assertion. He has provided only evidence that it is possible. I'm not saying he's wrong, but this article is pure garbage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His article has zero citations supporting his assertion .
He has provided only evidence that it is possible .
I 'm not saying he 's wrong , but this article is pure garbage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His article has zero citations supporting his assertion.
He has provided only evidence that it is possible.
I'm not saying he's wrong, but this article is pure garbage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879980</id>
	<title>Re:Careful There, Schneier</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264359780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>In order to comply with government search warrants on user data, Google created a backdoor access system into Gmail accounts. This feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access.</p></div><p>He better be able to back it up.</p></div><p>He doesn't really need to, for the same reason this is not exactly news, just sensationalist spin on something obvious.</p><p><b>Every</b> email system has a "back door."   <b>Every</b> email system maintainer has to comply with search warrants and with discovery requests for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronically\_stored\_information\_(Federal\_Rules\_of\_Civil\_Procedure)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">ESI</a> [wikipedia.org].  The same goes for file shares, calendars, any kind of electronic records you have, just as it does for paper records, audio tapes, photos, or any other kind of record.</p><p>Compliance for ESI requests can range from logging in as root and tarring up some files, hanging on to backup tapes indefinitely, or to sophisticated discovery interfaces like in Exchange 2010.</p><p>You can call these "back doors" if you want, but that's really being sensationalist.  And it's more for the Courts than for the Feds.  The fact is, if you get a subpoena or search warrant, you've got to cough up the relevant records, whether they're files on disk or folders in a file drawer.  Just because Gmail is "in the cloud" doesn't mean it doesn't ultimately come down to files on disk somewhere that sysadmins will have access to.</p><p>As much of a pain in the ass it is for sysadmins, I submit that subpoena power is a <b>good thing</b>, because it lets the courts get to the truth about who knew/said what when.  Often these records are the key to showing some government or corporate wrongdoing.  There's no reason why your papers in a safety deposit box should be subject to a subpoena (as they have been for a long time) and your email shouldn't.</p><p>Now, there may be times when these records are gotten in some other way (like illegal actions by the Feds), but that's a different issue than whether they can be gotten at all.  To act all shocked that people with root can (and sometimes have to) get at your email is stupid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to comply with government search warrants on user data , Google created a backdoor access system into Gmail accounts .
This feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access.He better be able to back it up.He does n't really need to , for the same reason this is not exactly news , just sensationalist spin on something obvious.Every email system has a " back door .
" Every email system maintainer has to comply with search warrants and with discovery requests for ESI [ wikipedia.org ] .
The same goes for file shares , calendars , any kind of electronic records you have , just as it does for paper records , audio tapes , photos , or any other kind of record.Compliance for ESI requests can range from logging in as root and tarring up some files , hanging on to backup tapes indefinitely , or to sophisticated discovery interfaces like in Exchange 2010.You can call these " back doors " if you want , but that 's really being sensationalist .
And it 's more for the Courts than for the Feds .
The fact is , if you get a subpoena or search warrant , you 've got to cough up the relevant records , whether they 're files on disk or folders in a file drawer .
Just because Gmail is " in the cloud " does n't mean it does n't ultimately come down to files on disk somewhere that sysadmins will have access to.As much of a pain in the ass it is for sysadmins , I submit that subpoena power is a good thing , because it lets the courts get to the truth about who knew/said what when .
Often these records are the key to showing some government or corporate wrongdoing .
There 's no reason why your papers in a safety deposit box should be subject to a subpoena ( as they have been for a long time ) and your email should n't.Now , there may be times when these records are gotten in some other way ( like illegal actions by the Feds ) , but that 's a different issue than whether they can be gotten at all .
To act all shocked that people with root can ( and sometimes have to ) get at your email is stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to comply with government search warrants on user data, Google created a backdoor access system into Gmail accounts.
This feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access.He better be able to back it up.He doesn't really need to, for the same reason this is not exactly news, just sensationalist spin on something obvious.Every email system has a "back door.
"   Every email system maintainer has to comply with search warrants and with discovery requests for ESI [wikipedia.org].
The same goes for file shares, calendars, any kind of electronic records you have, just as it does for paper records, audio tapes, photos, or any other kind of record.Compliance for ESI requests can range from logging in as root and tarring up some files, hanging on to backup tapes indefinitely, or to sophisticated discovery interfaces like in Exchange 2010.You can call these "back doors" if you want, but that's really being sensationalist.
And it's more for the Courts than for the Feds.
The fact is, if you get a subpoena or search warrant, you've got to cough up the relevant records, whether they're files on disk or folders in a file drawer.
Just because Gmail is "in the cloud" doesn't mean it doesn't ultimately come down to files on disk somewhere that sysadmins will have access to.As much of a pain in the ass it is for sysadmins, I submit that subpoena power is a good thing, because it lets the courts get to the truth about who knew/said what when.
Often these records are the key to showing some government or corporate wrongdoing.
There's no reason why your papers in a safety deposit box should be subject to a subpoena (as they have been for a long time) and your email shouldn't.Now, there may be times when these records are gotten in some other way (like illegal actions by the Feds), but that's a different issue than whether they can be gotten at all.
To act all shocked that people with root can (and sometimes have to) get at your email is stupid.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880344</id>
	<title>Not exactly the same</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1264361220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if we accept Schneier's source at his word, an "internal intercept" system which shows traffic on an account is NOT the same as a system which feeds all your details to the government.  There's a difference between a system which Google employees can use to comply with government warrants (as required by CALEA) and a system directly accessible by government officials ala AT&amp;T.</p><p>Still, if you think anything you send via email unencrypted anywhere in the Western world is safe from the US government (and, by extension, any government able to penetrate the US government), you're dreaming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if we accept Schneier 's source at his word , an " internal intercept " system which shows traffic on an account is NOT the same as a system which feeds all your details to the government .
There 's a difference between a system which Google employees can use to comply with government warrants ( as required by CALEA ) and a system directly accessible by government officials ala AT&amp;T.Still , if you think anything you send via email unencrypted anywhere in the Western world is safe from the US government ( and , by extension , any government able to penetrate the US government ) , you 're dreaming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if we accept Schneier's source at his word, an "internal intercept" system which shows traffic on an account is NOT the same as a system which feeds all your details to the government.
There's a difference between a system which Google employees can use to comply with government warrants (as required by CALEA) and a system directly accessible by government officials ala AT&amp;T.Still, if you think anything you send via email unencrypted anywhere in the Western world is safe from the US government (and, by extension, any government able to penetrate the US government), you're dreaming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879008</id>
	<title>really...</title>
	<author>duanco</author>
	<datestamp>1264353900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>a back door to a hosted email service....and this fellow is an expert? Guess he was never an admin anywhere......</htmltext>
<tokenext>a back door to a hosted email service....and this fellow is an expert ?
Guess he was never an admin anywhere..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a back door to a hosted email service....and this fellow is an expert?
Guess he was never an admin anywhere......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879238</id>
	<title>Schneier been living under a rock?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264355220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"And it's bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state."</p><p>ORLY, Bruce? Bad civic hygiene - for sure. But surely you're aware that so-called Legal Interception (LI) facilities are there in basically all communications networks used by the masses. It's not like this Google "backdoor" is anything out of the ordinary.</p><p>And you say correctly that they are a bad thing. Although, they would not be that bad, were they used to remove corruption and organized crime. But corruption and organized crime go hand in hand with top-tier politics, and therefore have protection.</p><p>As it stands now, such systems will only be used to target politically annoying individuals and kill off any dissent against status quo (whatever it may be, choose your -ism).</p><p>All of us can already now be tracked every single day by the digital communications methods we use. It doesn't matter if you live in USA or Iran, the LI facilities are built-in. In light of that, your comment strikes me as very ignorant - you say it as if it's a new thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" And it 's bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state .
" ORLY , Bruce ?
Bad civic hygiene - for sure .
But surely you 're aware that so-called Legal Interception ( LI ) facilities are there in basically all communications networks used by the masses .
It 's not like this Google " backdoor " is anything out of the ordinary.And you say correctly that they are a bad thing .
Although , they would not be that bad , were they used to remove corruption and organized crime .
But corruption and organized crime go hand in hand with top-tier politics , and therefore have protection.As it stands now , such systems will only be used to target politically annoying individuals and kill off any dissent against status quo ( whatever it may be , choose your -ism ) .All of us can already now be tracked every single day by the digital communications methods we use .
It does n't matter if you live in USA or Iran , the LI facilities are built-in .
In light of that , your comment strikes me as very ignorant - you say it as if it 's a new thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And it's bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state.
"ORLY, Bruce?
Bad civic hygiene - for sure.
But surely you're aware that so-called Legal Interception (LI) facilities are there in basically all communications networks used by the masses.
It's not like this Google "backdoor" is anything out of the ordinary.And you say correctly that they are a bad thing.
Although, they would not be that bad, were they used to remove corruption and organized crime.
But corruption and organized crime go hand in hand with top-tier politics, and therefore have protection.As it stands now, such systems will only be used to target politically annoying individuals and kill off any dissent against status quo (whatever it may be, choose your -ism).All of us can already now be tracked every single day by the digital communications methods we use.
It doesn't matter if you live in USA or Iran, the LI facilities are built-in.
In light of that, your comment strikes me as very ignorant - you say it as if it's a new thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30885144</id>
	<title>Re:Careful There, Schneier</title>
	<author>bmajik</author>
	<datestamp>1264347300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, the New York Times is a clearinghouse for political hacks masquerading as professionals.  It is a hive of villiany and evil.  It is utterly and completely irredeemable unless you have a particular sense of humor, in which case it is probably funny sometimes.</p><p>But everyone knows this.  It's water under the bridge, and intelligent people moved on.  Do New Yorkers even read it?</p><p>Bruce, on the other hand, is a decent guy, wickedly smart, and we (the computing world, nevermind computer security) have a lot to thank him over.  We hold him to a high standard because our previous interactions with him have trained us to do so.</p><p>Thus, it is jarring and disturbing if it looks like he's playing by different rules or talking to a different audience.  He's "one of us", not "one of them", and it's troubling if he doesn't act that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , the New York Times is a clearinghouse for political hacks masquerading as professionals .
It is a hive of villiany and evil .
It is utterly and completely irredeemable unless you have a particular sense of humor , in which case it is probably funny sometimes.But everyone knows this .
It 's water under the bridge , and intelligent people moved on .
Do New Yorkers even read it ? Bruce , on the other hand , is a decent guy , wickedly smart , and we ( the computing world , nevermind computer security ) have a lot to thank him over .
We hold him to a high standard because our previous interactions with him have trained us to do so.Thus , it is jarring and disturbing if it looks like he 's playing by different rules or talking to a different audience .
He 's " one of us " , not " one of them " , and it 's troubling if he does n't act that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, the New York Times is a clearinghouse for political hacks masquerading as professionals.
It is a hive of villiany and evil.
It is utterly and completely irredeemable unless you have a particular sense of humor, in which case it is probably funny sometimes.But everyone knows this.
It's water under the bridge, and intelligent people moved on.
Do New Yorkers even read it?Bruce, on the other hand, is a decent guy, wickedly smart, and we (the computing world, nevermind computer security) have a lot to thank him over.
We hold him to a high standard because our previous interactions with him have trained us to do so.Thus, it is jarring and disturbing if it looks like he's playing by different rules or talking to a different audience.
He's "one of us", not "one of them", and it's troubling if he doesn't act that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30887654</id>
	<title>Google Messed up big wasRe:Careful There, Schneier</title>
	<author>mjwalshe</author>
	<datestamp>1264416060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that if to comply with legal requests from the Police/FBI etc Google have a duty to properly secure the systems and to properly vet people with access to said system. Looks like Google messed up big time.<p>

And as a former BT employeee I am very surprised that Bruce S did not know this - I supect the boys from the xx floor in the yyy building will be having a word. </p><p>

For example team leaders on certain systems had to be PV'd (posativly vetted) and if anything suspisious was flaged the Internat security department would get quite intense about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that if to comply with legal requests from the Police/FBI etc Google have a duty to properly secure the systems and to properly vet people with access to said system .
Looks like Google messed up big time .
And as a former BT employeee I am very surprised that Bruce S did not know this - I supect the boys from the xx floor in the yyy building will be having a word .
For example team leaders on certain systems had to be PV 'd ( posativly vetted ) and if anything suspisious was flaged the Internat security department would get quite intense about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that if to comply with legal requests from the Police/FBI etc Google have a duty to properly secure the systems and to properly vet people with access to said system.
Looks like Google messed up big time.
And as a former BT employeee I am very surprised that Bruce S did not know this - I supect the boys from the xx floor in the yyy building will be having a word.
For example team leaders on certain systems had to be PV'd (posativly vetted) and if anything suspisious was flaged the Internat security department would get quite intense about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30881656</id>
	<title>Eavesdropping should require SOME effort</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1264324740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Backdoors" into telco switches and the like should be "hardwired" to only be accessible at specific locations, by specific people, with specific reasons, with extensive logs of who saw what and when so oversight authorities (e.g. Congress, courts) can audit them.</p><p>Each switch or server should have a dedicated network port, not connected to any network except the snooper's, over which snooping is done.</p><p>Ideally, it would not be a "snooper's network" but rather a "snooper box," with an air-gap between it and the other FBI or police computers.</p><p>The military knows how to do this right.  If the FBI and police departments aren't using something like this, they can take a lesson.</p><p>By the way, it's not just "telco/ISP/mail-provider backdoors" that need this, anything that gives sensitive access should be as isolated as practical.  For some networks, this means complete isolation/air gap.  For others, it means dedicated communication channels.  For others, a traditional firewall is sufficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Backdoors " into telco switches and the like should be " hardwired " to only be accessible at specific locations , by specific people , with specific reasons , with extensive logs of who saw what and when so oversight authorities ( e.g .
Congress , courts ) can audit them.Each switch or server should have a dedicated network port , not connected to any network except the snooper 's , over which snooping is done.Ideally , it would not be a " snooper 's network " but rather a " snooper box , " with an air-gap between it and the other FBI or police computers.The military knows how to do this right .
If the FBI and police departments are n't using something like this , they can take a lesson.By the way , it 's not just " telco/ISP/mail-provider backdoors " that need this , anything that gives sensitive access should be as isolated as practical .
For some networks , this means complete isolation/air gap .
For others , it means dedicated communication channels .
For others , a traditional firewall is sufficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Backdoors" into telco switches and the like should be "hardwired" to only be accessible at specific locations, by specific people, with specific reasons, with extensive logs of who saw what and when so oversight authorities (e.g.
Congress, courts) can audit them.Each switch or server should have a dedicated network port, not connected to any network except the snooper's, over which snooping is done.Ideally, it would not be a "snooper's network" but rather a "snooper box," with an air-gap between it and the other FBI or police computers.The military knows how to do this right.
If the FBI and police departments aren't using something like this, they can take a lesson.By the way, it's not just "telco/ISP/mail-provider backdoors" that need this, anything that gives sensitive access should be as isolated as practical.
For some networks, this means complete isolation/air gap.
For others, it means dedicated communication channels.
For others, a traditional firewall is sufficient.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879228</id>
	<title>The People's Responsibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264355100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bad civic hygiene? So what, companies are supposed to tell the government "no" on their own? It's the people's responsibility to push their representatives to keep these government mandates from happening in the first place, or replace those representatives with those who do what the fuck they're told by the people they represent.</p><p>It's the epitome of shameful laziness that we (the American citizens, that is) allow our 'representatives' to do what they please while throwing up our hands and saying, "oh, well, what can *I* do" then bitching about government regulations putting us in danger. With each new generation, we've become more and more complacent.</p><p>Stand up and take responsibility for your (our) government, you lazy fucks.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and get off my lawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bad civic hygiene ?
So what , companies are supposed to tell the government " no " on their own ?
It 's the people 's responsibility to push their representatives to keep these government mandates from happening in the first place , or replace those representatives with those who do what the fuck they 're told by the people they represent.It 's the epitome of shameful laziness that we ( the American citizens , that is ) allow our 'representatives ' to do what they please while throwing up our hands and saying , " oh , well , what can * I * do " then bitching about government regulations putting us in danger .
With each new generation , we 've become more and more complacent.Stand up and take responsibility for your ( our ) government , you lazy fucks .
... and get off my lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bad civic hygiene?
So what, companies are supposed to tell the government "no" on their own?
It's the people's responsibility to push their representatives to keep these government mandates from happening in the first place, or replace those representatives with those who do what the fuck they're told by the people they represent.It's the epitome of shameful laziness that we (the American citizens, that is) allow our 'representatives' to do what they please while throwing up our hands and saying, "oh, well, what can *I* do" then bitching about government regulations putting us in danger.
With each new generation, we've become more and more complacent.Stand up and take responsibility for your (our) government, you lazy fucks.
... and get off my lawn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30882652</id>
	<title>Why a backdoor? Google owns Gmail.</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1264330440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why they would need a backdoor? all the emails go in their servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why they would need a backdoor ?
all the emails go in their servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why they would need a backdoor?
all the emails go in their servers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30892352</id>
	<title>Re:At least Google wasn't running IE 6</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264442940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, our content boss at Lycos Germany also ran AOL (including the incompetence that comes with it). So...<br>(Company defunct now. *actualLOL*)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , our content boss at Lycos Germany also ran AOL ( including the incompetence that comes with it ) .
So... ( Company defunct now .
* actualLOL * )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, our content boss at Lycos Germany also ran AOL (including the incompetence that comes with it).
So...(Company defunct now.
*actualLOL*)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879546</id>
	<title>Hmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264357320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>How come when I type "backdoor entry" into google, I don't get any sites related to this attack, just massive amounts of material on anal sex.  It's a cover up I tell you!</htmltext>
<tokenext>How come when I type " backdoor entry " into google , I do n't get any sites related to this attack , just massive amounts of material on anal sex .
It 's a cover up I tell you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How come when I type "backdoor entry" into google, I don't get any sites related to this attack, just massive amounts of material on anal sex.
It's a cover up I tell you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880342</id>
	<title>Trying to blame Google instead of MS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264361220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He is trying to raise the point that perhaps this is Google's fault, not Microsoft's. And I agree, but not for the same reasons. If Google was stupid enough to use Windows internally they deserved to be hacked. They should know better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He is trying to raise the point that perhaps this is Google 's fault , not Microsoft 's .
And I agree , but not for the same reasons .
If Google was stupid enough to use Windows internally they deserved to be hacked .
They should know better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He is trying to raise the point that perhaps this is Google's fault, not Microsoft's.
And I agree, but not for the same reasons.
If Google was stupid enough to use Windows internally they deserved to be hacked.
They should know better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879400</id>
	<title>Re:Careful There, Schneier</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264356300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"He better be able to back it up."</p><p>He doesn't have to.  I'll explain later.  In fact, reactionary posts like yours and the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. article is an inhibitor in favor of backdoors like this, instead of being patient and seeing what comes out.  You are attacking the holder of the opinion, redirecting focus to the very real case of government backdoors and general population communication abuses, which has been proved, real, and pronounced (see AT&amp;T eavesdropping and others).</p><p>Which is a shitload worse than Schneier mere opinion, even if unsubstantiated (which is worse than uncorroborated) on the matter.</p><p>"I just want to caution everyone that you're reading an opinion piece by a security blogger with no corroborating evidence."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,,,in the story.  He may have corroborating evidence, but is smart enough not to put it forward for both his sake, his sources sake, and/or as bait.</p><p>If he had that evidence, he'd be held for obtaining classified information without a due security clearance and prosecuted.</p><p>"I have respect for the man but this certainly shakes that. Any concrete proof of this would be welcomed. The problem is I'm not sure how one would prove it one way or the other since I believe all the source in question is closed source to begin with."</p><p>Very true and you start in on the crux of this matter of releasing source info.  However, I think you are looking at this as overly critical of Schneier, instead of looking at the whole picture.  He lives in the real world, he has to live with the repercussions to his life, far more than you or I.</p><p>If he releases the info and has a source, Schneier himself gets prosecuted or at least subpoena'd for his source, and if he refuses to reveal it, he gets locked up.  His source, at the very least, can be revealed and gets pounded (and people like you won't do a think and can't).  And Schneier loses future use of his source.  iow, at the very best, he can only suggest his opinion, which is what he is doing.</p><p>If he simply airs the idea out there, knowing it's true, that's fine by me.  Maybe it isn't for you, but he's been right far far more often than not so in this case, I think people should look at the bulk of his work instead of just one instance that has yet to play out fully.  If he continues to do this repeatedly for other issues, then yes, I'd start to shift in your opinion of the man.  But I haven't seem him abuse his reputation.  iow, if this is a lapse, it's unfortunate, but Schneier is human, and I doubt it's a lapse of judgment.</p><p>If he doesn't have a source, but has evidence, and isn't sure, he may be airing this out there without corroborating evidence (having no substantial evidence of course), to see what happens.  If they go after him, then you have a tell tale sign.  If there are code changes, again, tell tale sign.  If he gets harrassed or hammered by 3 letter agencies, again, tell tale (and maybe this has already happened).</p><p>If he simply just threw it out there, then, yeah, shame on him, but again, I haven't seen him do this in the past, so I'm very willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, since his contributions, sources, and info in the past has been spot on.  His hands may be tied in this case or he's being careful (esp. with a new administration that still has strong ties in the agencies to the prior administration, with a pro-prosecutional bent to it to go after small fries which Schneier would be in the grand scheme of things in the populace).</p><p>Your opinion will likely differ on this, but as you seem well aware of his legacy, I think it's over done to be this critical this early in the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" He better be able to back it up .
" He does n't have to .
I 'll explain later .
In fact , reactionary posts like yours and the / .
article is an inhibitor in favor of backdoors like this , instead of being patient and seeing what comes out .
You are attacking the holder of the opinion , redirecting focus to the very real case of government backdoors and general population communication abuses , which has been proved , real , and pronounced ( see AT&amp;T eavesdropping and others ) .Which is a shitload worse than Schneier mere opinion , even if unsubstantiated ( which is worse than uncorroborated ) on the matter .
" I just want to caution everyone that you 're reading an opinion piece by a security blogger with no corroborating evidence .
" ,,,in the story .
He may have corroborating evidence , but is smart enough not to put it forward for both his sake , his sources sake , and/or as bait.If he had that evidence , he 'd be held for obtaining classified information without a due security clearance and prosecuted .
" I have respect for the man but this certainly shakes that .
Any concrete proof of this would be welcomed .
The problem is I 'm not sure how one would prove it one way or the other since I believe all the source in question is closed source to begin with .
" Very true and you start in on the crux of this matter of releasing source info .
However , I think you are looking at this as overly critical of Schneier , instead of looking at the whole picture .
He lives in the real world , he has to live with the repercussions to his life , far more than you or I.If he releases the info and has a source , Schneier himself gets prosecuted or at least subpoena 'd for his source , and if he refuses to reveal it , he gets locked up .
His source , at the very least , can be revealed and gets pounded ( and people like you wo n't do a think and ca n't ) .
And Schneier loses future use of his source .
iow , at the very best , he can only suggest his opinion , which is what he is doing.If he simply airs the idea out there , knowing it 's true , that 's fine by me .
Maybe it is n't for you , but he 's been right far far more often than not so in this case , I think people should look at the bulk of his work instead of just one instance that has yet to play out fully .
If he continues to do this repeatedly for other issues , then yes , I 'd start to shift in your opinion of the man .
But I have n't seem him abuse his reputation .
iow , if this is a lapse , it 's unfortunate , but Schneier is human , and I doubt it 's a lapse of judgment.If he does n't have a source , but has evidence , and is n't sure , he may be airing this out there without corroborating evidence ( having no substantial evidence of course ) , to see what happens .
If they go after him , then you have a tell tale sign .
If there are code changes , again , tell tale sign .
If he gets harrassed or hammered by 3 letter agencies , again , tell tale ( and maybe this has already happened ) .If he simply just threw it out there , then , yeah , shame on him , but again , I have n't seen him do this in the past , so I 'm very willing to give him the benefit of the doubt , since his contributions , sources , and info in the past has been spot on .
His hands may be tied in this case or he 's being careful ( esp .
with a new administration that still has strong ties in the agencies to the prior administration , with a pro-prosecutional bent to it to go after small fries which Schneier would be in the grand scheme of things in the populace ) .Your opinion will likely differ on this , but as you seem well aware of his legacy , I think it 's over done to be this critical this early in the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"He better be able to back it up.
"He doesn't have to.
I'll explain later.
In fact, reactionary posts like yours and the /.
article is an inhibitor in favor of backdoors like this, instead of being patient and seeing what comes out.
You are attacking the holder of the opinion, redirecting focus to the very real case of government backdoors and general population communication abuses, which has been proved, real, and pronounced (see AT&amp;T eavesdropping and others).Which is a shitload worse than Schneier mere opinion, even if unsubstantiated (which is worse than uncorroborated) on the matter.
"I just want to caution everyone that you're reading an opinion piece by a security blogger with no corroborating evidence.
" ,,,in the story.
He may have corroborating evidence, but is smart enough not to put it forward for both his sake, his sources sake, and/or as bait.If he had that evidence, he'd be held for obtaining classified information without a due security clearance and prosecuted.
"I have respect for the man but this certainly shakes that.
Any concrete proof of this would be welcomed.
The problem is I'm not sure how one would prove it one way or the other since I believe all the source in question is closed source to begin with.
"Very true and you start in on the crux of this matter of releasing source info.
However, I think you are looking at this as overly critical of Schneier, instead of looking at the whole picture.
He lives in the real world, he has to live with the repercussions to his life, far more than you or I.If he releases the info and has a source, Schneier himself gets prosecuted or at least subpoena'd for his source, and if he refuses to reveal it, he gets locked up.
His source, at the very least, can be revealed and gets pounded (and people like you won't do a think and can't).
And Schneier loses future use of his source.
iow, at the very best, he can only suggest his opinion, which is what he is doing.If he simply airs the idea out there, knowing it's true, that's fine by me.
Maybe it isn't for you, but he's been right far far more often than not so in this case, I think people should look at the bulk of his work instead of just one instance that has yet to play out fully.
If he continues to do this repeatedly for other issues, then yes, I'd start to shift in your opinion of the man.
But I haven't seem him abuse his reputation.
iow, if this is a lapse, it's unfortunate, but Schneier is human, and I doubt it's a lapse of judgment.If he doesn't have a source, but has evidence, and isn't sure, he may be airing this out there without corroborating evidence (having no substantial evidence of course), to see what happens.
If they go after him, then you have a tell tale sign.
If there are code changes, again, tell tale sign.
If he gets harrassed or hammered by 3 letter agencies, again, tell tale (and maybe this has already happened).If he simply just threw it out there, then, yeah, shame on him, but again, I haven't seen him do this in the past, so I'm very willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, since his contributions, sources, and info in the past has been spot on.
His hands may be tied in this case or he's being careful (esp.
with a new administration that still has strong ties in the agencies to the prior administration, with a pro-prosecutional bent to it to go after small fries which Schneier would be in the grand scheme of things in the populace).Your opinion will likely differ on this, but as you seem well aware of his legacy, I think it's over done to be this critical this early in the game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879482</id>
	<title>Re:Careful There, Schneier</title>
	<author>nevesis</author>
	<datestamp>1264356780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Schneier is, in my opinion, a much more reputable source than the New York Times.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Schneier is , in my opinion , a much more reputable source than the New York Times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Schneier is, in my opinion, a much more reputable source than the New York Times.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879164</id>
	<title>Google + ChiCom Gov</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264354860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is not beyond belief that Google made certain concessions to the Chinese Government. Eventually, any concession to ANY government is going to bite the company and the user in the ass. Or, in the case of the Chinese, put a lethal 9mm sized hole in the head.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not beyond belief that Google made certain concessions to the Chinese Government .
Eventually , any concession to ANY government is going to bite the company and the user in the ass .
Or , in the case of the Chinese , put a lethal 9mm sized hole in the head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not beyond belief that Google made certain concessions to the Chinese Government.
Eventually, any concession to ANY government is going to bite the company and the user in the ass.
Or, in the case of the Chinese, put a lethal 9mm sized hole in the head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880676</id>
	<title>Civic Nonsense</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1264362780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And it's bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state.</i> </p><p>There aren't many technologies that haven't made centralized government easier.</p><p>The abacus. The Roman road.</p><p> The canal. The steam engine. The railroad. The telegraph.</p><p>The examples can be multiplied endlessly.</p><p> The geek builds these things. The state funds these things - directly or indirectly.</p><p> In the past, through land grants. Mail contracts.</p><p>Someone always finds a way to work around the liberal or conservative opposition to tech the government wants to see developed.</p><p>While the geek never quite wakes up to the fact that there is going to be another hand at the controls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it 's bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state .
There are n't many technologies that have n't made centralized government easier.The abacus .
The Roman road .
The canal .
The steam engine .
The railroad .
The telegraph.The examples can be multiplied endlessly .
The geek builds these things .
The state funds these things - directly or indirectly .
In the past , through land grants .
Mail contracts.Someone always finds a way to work around the liberal or conservative opposition to tech the government wants to see developed.While the geek never quite wakes up to the fact that there is going to be another hand at the controls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it's bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state.
There aren't many technologies that haven't made centralized government easier.The abacus.
The Roman road.
The canal.
The steam engine.
The railroad.
The telegraph.The examples can be multiplied endlessly.
The geek builds these things.
The state funds these things - directly or indirectly.
In the past, through land grants.
Mail contracts.Someone always finds a way to work around the liberal or conservative opposition to tech the government wants to see developed.While the geek never quite wakes up to the fact that there is going to be another hand at the controls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879302</id>
	<title>Think about it a second</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1264355580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I just want to caution everyone that you're reading an opinion piece by a security blogger with no corroborating evidence.</i>
</p><p>And how is he going to get the documentation now?  Sue?  The government steps in and claims state secrets, case dismissed.  Ask Google for the documentation that admits they cooperated with a secret government program to spy on Americans?  Bad for business and then they'd face federal criminal prosecution.

</p><p>He probably has sources, but wants to protect them. Can't quote your sources, can't produce the docs, so the only option is to make the accusation and invite Google to sue him for defamation and tortious interference.  He could still protect his sources and it would open Google up to discovery, something I'm sure the government isn't anxious to see happen.

</p><p>We already know the telephone and cellular companies have found a way to monetize state surveillance by law enforcement, so they're not complaining.  Who exactly is motivated to blab about any of this?  And since Microsoft has decided to continue operating in China, one could also conclude they have back door systems as well and are more than willing to cooperate with both governments spying on their people.  We assume for slightly different reasons, but how do we really know?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just want to caution everyone that you 're reading an opinion piece by a security blogger with no corroborating evidence .
And how is he going to get the documentation now ?
Sue ? The government steps in and claims state secrets , case dismissed .
Ask Google for the documentation that admits they cooperated with a secret government program to spy on Americans ?
Bad for business and then they 'd face federal criminal prosecution .
He probably has sources , but wants to protect them .
Ca n't quote your sources , ca n't produce the docs , so the only option is to make the accusation and invite Google to sue him for defamation and tortious interference .
He could still protect his sources and it would open Google up to discovery , something I 'm sure the government is n't anxious to see happen .
We already know the telephone and cellular companies have found a way to monetize state surveillance by law enforcement , so they 're not complaining .
Who exactly is motivated to blab about any of this ?
And since Microsoft has decided to continue operating in China , one could also conclude they have back door systems as well and are more than willing to cooperate with both governments spying on their people .
We assume for slightly different reasons , but how do we really know ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I just want to caution everyone that you're reading an opinion piece by a security blogger with no corroborating evidence.
And how is he going to get the documentation now?
Sue?  The government steps in and claims state secrets, case dismissed.
Ask Google for the documentation that admits they cooperated with a secret government program to spy on Americans?
Bad for business and then they'd face federal criminal prosecution.
He probably has sources, but wants to protect them.
Can't quote your sources, can't produce the docs, so the only option is to make the accusation and invite Google to sue him for defamation and tortious interference.
He could still protect his sources and it would open Google up to discovery, something I'm sure the government isn't anxious to see happen.
We already know the telephone and cellular companies have found a way to monetize state surveillance by law enforcement, so they're not complaining.
Who exactly is motivated to blab about any of this?
And since Microsoft has decided to continue operating in China, one could also conclude they have back door systems as well and are more than willing to cooperate with both governments spying on their people.
We assume for slightly different reasons, but how do we really know?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879226</id>
	<title>I wonder what the password was</title>
	<author>madcat2c</author>
	<datestamp>1264355100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The facebook master password was "Chuck Norris"...what was google's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Steven Seagal?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The facebook master password was " Chuck Norris " ...what was google 's ...Steven Seagal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The facebook master password was "Chuck Norris"...what was google's ...Steven Seagal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879086</id>
	<title>Re:Careful There, Schneier</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264354440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Butch goes to Indochina I want a nigger hiding in a bowl of rice waiting to pop a cap in his ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Butch goes to Indochina I want a nigger hiding in a bowl of rice waiting to pop a cap in his ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Butch goes to Indochina I want a nigger hiding in a bowl of rice waiting to pop a cap in his ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879262</id>
	<title>Nelson would say...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264355280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ha ha.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha ha .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha ha.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30882650</id>
	<title>Re:Google's internal security vulnerbilities</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1264330440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>      Firstly it would mean Google can no longer count on its Chinese
  employees loyalty when it clashes with their loyalty to China,</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
It's pretty damn foolish for a corporation to think that it commands
better loyalty than their employee's homeland. If Google really believes that, then it deserves what it gets.
</p><p>
People have a hierarchy of loyalties that are built up over their lifetime.
A foreign company merely paying their checks for a few years is way, way down the list.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firstly it would mean Google can no longer count on its Chinese employees loyalty when it clashes with their loyalty to China , It 's pretty damn foolish for a corporation to think that it commands better loyalty than their employee 's homeland .
If Google really believes that , then it deserves what it gets .
People have a hierarchy of loyalties that are built up over their lifetime .
A foreign company merely paying their checks for a few years is way , way down the list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      Firstly it would mean Google can no longer count on its Chinese
  employees loyalty when it clashes with their loyalty to China,

It's pretty damn foolish for a corporation to think that it commands
better loyalty than their employee's homeland.
If Google really believes that, then it deserves what it gets.
People have a hierarchy of loyalties that are built up over their lifetime.
A foreign company merely paying their checks for a few years is way, way down the list.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30886092</id>
	<title>Re:At least Google wasn't running IE 6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264355460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>--Greg (Now I just need to find something to make me feel better about our government)</p></div><p>Google Scott Brown Cosmo.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>--Greg ( Now I just need to find something to make me feel better about our government ) Google Scott Brown Cosmo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>--Greg (Now I just need to find something to make me feel better about our government)Google Scott Brown Cosmo.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879446</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder what the password was</title>
	<author>Felix Da Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1264356600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oddly enough, it was 'Bruce Schneier'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oddly enough , it was 'Bruce Schneier' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oddly enough, it was 'Bruce Schneier'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30882390</id>
	<title>(Un)Encrypted data..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264329180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I don't mean the SSL/TLS/PGP stuff included in your favorite email product, that comes pre-compromised from the supplier.</p><p>Minimum = stunnel and generate your own stunnel.pem</p><p>I recommend the above + encrypting the message as an attachment using  Omziff 3.2, Iopus sea or Axcrypt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I do n't mean the SSL/TLS/PGP stuff included in your favorite email product , that comes pre-compromised from the supplier.Minimum = stunnel and generate your own stunnel.pemI recommend the above + encrypting the message as an attachment using Omziff 3.2 , Iopus sea or Axcrypt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I don't mean the SSL/TLS/PGP stuff included in your favorite email product, that comes pre-compromised from the supplier.Minimum = stunnel and generate your own stunnel.pemI recommend the above + encrypting the message as an attachment using  Omziff 3.2, Iopus sea or Axcrypt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30883608</id>
	<title>Re:Google's internal security vulnerbilities</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1264336740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you trust anybody external with your data you're asking for trouble. If it gets off your LAN in unencrypted form it's out. It doesn't matter if it's Google, Microsoft, Iron Mountain or anybody else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you trust anybody external with your data you 're asking for trouble .
If it gets off your LAN in unencrypted form it 's out .
It does n't matter if it 's Google , Microsoft , Iron Mountain or anybody else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you trust anybody external with your data you're asking for trouble.
If it gets off your LAN in unencrypted form it's out.
It doesn't matter if it's Google, Microsoft, Iron Mountain or anybody else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30881994</id>
	<title>Mr. Potato Head!  Mr. Potato Head!!</title>
	<author>samgman</author>
	<datestamp>1264326840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Backdoors are not secrets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Backdoors are not secrets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Backdoors are not secrets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879178</id>
	<title>Back Door Government Access...</title>
	<author>hackus</author>
	<datestamp>1264354860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Woops!</p><p>Wrong government.</p><p>Sorry.</p><p>-Hack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Woops ! Wrong government.Sorry.-Hack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woops!Wrong government.Sorry.-Hack</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879558</id>
	<title>Schneier might \_be\_ a source for his own article.</title>
	<author>TwineLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1264357380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Schneier is not primarily a 'blogger,' although that may be how we most frequently encounter him.  As the publisher of the renowned book "Applied Cryptography," Schneier is a recognized domain expert in the field of security.<br><br>Therefore it is possible, even likely, that Schneier has directly received information pertinent to the attack.  Someone assigned to the investigation may have phoned him up to consult his opinion, if nothing else.  Given the progressive techno-legal opinion he wrote, I think it is just as possible that someone from the investigation 'leaked' information to Scheneier about the use of the CALEA interface.<br><br>By the way, for those who doubt that there is a 'backdoor' to gmail, CALEA is a law which \_mandates\_ a law enforcement backdoor, either through manual procedures or through computational interface.  It sounds like Google has implement a CALEA interface, and China used an IE6 vulnerability to hack first Google, then used the CALEA interface to monitor specific accounts.<br><br>The nice thing about using the CALEA interface is that I presume this would not give any clue to the monitored user that the account is being monitored.  Logging in with the user's password, as a contrary example, updates the IP usage information displayed by gmail.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Schneier is not primarily a 'blogger, ' although that may be how we most frequently encounter him .
As the publisher of the renowned book " Applied Cryptography , " Schneier is a recognized domain expert in the field of security.Therefore it is possible , even likely , that Schneier has directly received information pertinent to the attack .
Someone assigned to the investigation may have phoned him up to consult his opinion , if nothing else .
Given the progressive techno-legal opinion he wrote , I think it is just as possible that someone from the investigation 'leaked ' information to Scheneier about the use of the CALEA interface.By the way , for those who doubt that there is a 'backdoor ' to gmail , CALEA is a law which \ _mandates \ _ a law enforcement backdoor , either through manual procedures or through computational interface .
It sounds like Google has implement a CALEA interface , and China used an IE6 vulnerability to hack first Google , then used the CALEA interface to monitor specific accounts.The nice thing about using the CALEA interface is that I presume this would not give any clue to the monitored user that the account is being monitored .
Logging in with the user 's password , as a contrary example , updates the IP usage information displayed by gmail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Schneier is not primarily a 'blogger,' although that may be how we most frequently encounter him.
As the publisher of the renowned book "Applied Cryptography," Schneier is a recognized domain expert in the field of security.Therefore it is possible, even likely, that Schneier has directly received information pertinent to the attack.
Someone assigned to the investigation may have phoned him up to consult his opinion, if nothing else.
Given the progressive techno-legal opinion he wrote, I think it is just as possible that someone from the investigation 'leaked' information to Scheneier about the use of the CALEA interface.By the way, for those who doubt that there is a 'backdoor' to gmail, CALEA is a law which \_mandates\_ a law enforcement backdoor, either through manual procedures or through computational interface.
It sounds like Google has implement a CALEA interface, and China used an IE6 vulnerability to hack first Google, then used the CALEA interface to monitor specific accounts.The nice thing about using the CALEA interface is that I presume this would not give any clue to the monitored user that the account is being monitored.
Logging in with the user's password, as a contrary example, updates the IP usage information displayed by gmail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30884806</id>
	<title>what goes around comes around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264345020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you decided to take the moral low ground, you lose the right to bitch when the shit hits the fan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you decided to take the moral low ground , you lose the right to bitch when the shit hits the fan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you decided to take the moral low ground, you lose the right to bitch when the shit hits the fan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879280</id>
	<title>Re:Not just short on sources</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264355460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh, kissy kissy, you are such a Google Fan Boi! A hosted email system with a back door? Wake me up when there is real news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , kissy kissy , you are such a Google Fan Boi !
A hosted email system with a back door ?
Wake me up when there is real news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, kissy kissy, you are such a Google Fan Boi!
A hosted email system with a back door?
Wake me up when there is real news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879040</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30885262</id>
	<title>Re:Missing the real issues</title>
	<author>yuhong</author>
	<datestamp>1264348200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At least the info is quite limited, for example, no email body.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least the info is quite limited , for example , no email body .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least the info is quite limited, for example, no email body.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30884904</id>
	<title>Re:Careful There, Schneier</title>
	<author>t0p</author>
	<datestamp>1264345560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see where Schneier claimed this backdoor allowed the evil geniuses to sign into the violated Gmail accounts.  The backdoor merely gave them "access" to the accounts.  Which is precisely what the Computer World item says.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see where Schneier claimed this backdoor allowed the evil geniuses to sign into the violated Gmail accounts .
The backdoor merely gave them " access " to the accounts .
Which is precisely what the Computer World item says .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see where Schneier claimed this backdoor allowed the evil geniuses to sign into the violated Gmail accounts.
The backdoor merely gave them "access" to the accounts.
Which is precisely what the Computer World item says.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879202</id>
	<title>mo3 0p</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264354980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">Recruitment, but ra3ist?  How is</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Recruitment , but ra3ist ?
How is [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recruitment, but ra3ist?
How is [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30894214</id>
	<title>Re:Careful There, Schneier</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1264450980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And on top of that, he has zero accountability.</i></p><p>Reputations are <i>very</i> expensive to build and very costly to lose.  Bruce rarely makes bad calls in his field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And on top of that , he has zero accountability.Reputations are very expensive to build and very costly to lose .
Bruce rarely makes bad calls in his field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And on top of that, he has zero accountability.Reputations are very expensive to build and very costly to lose.
Bruce rarely makes bad calls in his field.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880274</id>
	<title>Re:From what I understand...</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1264360980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; The whole telecommunications industry has been in bed with the government<br>&gt; for years.</p><p>For values of "in bed" near "Shut up and do as you are told or we will put you out of business."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; The whole telecommunications industry has been in bed with the government &gt; for years.For values of " in bed " near " Shut up and do as you are told or we will put you out of business .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; The whole telecommunications industry has been in bed with the government&gt; for years.For values of "in bed" near "Shut up and do as you are told or we will put you out of business.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880328</id>
	<title>Re:The People's Responsibility</title>
	<author>0123456</author>
	<datestamp>1264361220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's the people's responsibility to push their representatives to keep these government mandates from happening in the first place, or replace those representatives with those who do what the fuck they're told by the people they represent.</p></div><p>Yeah, because that works just so well.</p><p>Companies sure as hell should be shouting when the government tries to force them to take these stupid, police-state measures: bad publicity is far more effective at eliminating bad laws than mere voting ever has been.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the people 's responsibility to push their representatives to keep these government mandates from happening in the first place , or replace those representatives with those who do what the fuck they 're told by the people they represent.Yeah , because that works just so well.Companies sure as hell should be shouting when the government tries to force them to take these stupid , police-state measures : bad publicity is far more effective at eliminating bad laws than mere voting ever has been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the people's responsibility to push their representatives to keep these government mandates from happening in the first place, or replace those representatives with those who do what the fuck they're told by the people they represent.Yeah, because that works just so well.Companies sure as hell should be shouting when the government tries to force them to take these stupid, police-state measures: bad publicity is far more effective at eliminating bad laws than mere voting ever has been.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30886328</id>
	<title>Re:Hmm...</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1264357500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That are probably your personalised search results.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That are probably your personalised search results .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That are probably your personalised search results.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879430</id>
	<title>Re:Careful There, Schneier</title>
	<author>mtrachtenberg</author>
	<datestamp>1264356480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If there is no back door, Google should deny it unequivocally.  If Google does not deny it, unequivocally, I think it would be appropriate to change the way we (many of us) think of Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If there is no back door , Google should deny it unequivocally .
If Google does not deny it , unequivocally , I think it would be appropriate to change the way we ( many of us ) think of Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If there is no back door, Google should deny it unequivocally.
If Google does not deny it, unequivocally, I think it would be appropriate to change the way we (many of us) think of Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879186</id>
	<title>Re:Careful There, Schneier</title>
	<author>amiga3D</author>
	<datestamp>1264354920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I suspect that going into detail about a backdoor system put into place by the government would be hazardous to his freedom.  I'd bet the details are classified.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that going into detail about a backdoor system put into place by the government would be hazardous to his freedom .
I 'd bet the details are classified .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that going into detail about a backdoor system put into place by the government would be hazardous to his freedom.
I'd bet the details are classified.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880264</id>
	<title>Database Security &amp; open architectures</title>
	<author>turtleshadow</author>
	<datestamp>1264360920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google's stance on database security is poorly documented and certainly not open. I've yet to find comprehensive peer review of their architecture security (but then they are a for profit enterprise) and need not comply like Oracle, IBM DB2, MySQL?</p><p>Numerous opportunities exist in the chain of data that Google is slurping through to build in "back doors" either deliberately or by "accident" expose data.</p><p>Somehow they "parse"  accounts for words, addresses, html code, etc then use those datapoints to do statistical cross references to build the ad's. Thats elementary. However since they parse EVERYTHING in the account somehow the programmer(s) have to make design decisions on how to go about it. Is there one process per type of data. One that just looks for PDF code vs keywords? Is there one process per country with applicable rules for that country? Are the configuration tables for that process well protected and not able to be circumvented?</p><p>Google has to crack open each file, Adobe reported a breach so perhaps the attack vector was in the PDF parse/scrubber at Google.</p><p>It would be trivial "once inside the system" to set configs to just suck out everything instead of what that particular process ought looking for and tee the result over to some obscure process or table buried deep in the DB to retrieve it later by some query.</p><p>Once you found a marker to your target you'd just have to find the right DB keys they are associated with to get all the other data about them. Somehow every Google account has a primary or some other key that associates the data. No one is asking about low level DB security on this thread. Who exactly gets granted access to the primary and following keys and tables. Who has authority to restart processes? Are processes logged as to why they restarted with new values?</p><p>It's quite possible there is a way to view Google accounts outside a web-interface which is what normal people think when they hear back door. Its more sophisticated than viewing the raw dump. I suspect the intrusion proved the new horizon for security: That it ispossible to "re-assemble" most if not all the account from the database(s) if you've p0wnd the DB at a low level without the need for a backdoor to the actual account nor the Google foundational OS/netstack. The Chinese probably attacked and penetrated the DB's somehow.</p><p>I think this is the great oversight it was not just that Gmail was hacked. It is broader to say Google Accounts; gmail points to web search which is tied to Picassa, which is tied to Blogger, which is tied to youtube, etc....</p><p>All these have to be fortified at the DB level else any other measure of security is meaningless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's stance on database security is poorly documented and certainly not open .
I 've yet to find comprehensive peer review of their architecture security ( but then they are a for profit enterprise ) and need not comply like Oracle , IBM DB2 , MySQL ? Numerous opportunities exist in the chain of data that Google is slurping through to build in " back doors " either deliberately or by " accident " expose data.Somehow they " parse " accounts for words , addresses , html code , etc then use those datapoints to do statistical cross references to build the ad 's .
Thats elementary .
However since they parse EVERYTHING in the account somehow the programmer ( s ) have to make design decisions on how to go about it .
Is there one process per type of data .
One that just looks for PDF code vs keywords ?
Is there one process per country with applicable rules for that country ?
Are the configuration tables for that process well protected and not able to be circumvented ? Google has to crack open each file , Adobe reported a breach so perhaps the attack vector was in the PDF parse/scrubber at Google.It would be trivial " once inside the system " to set configs to just suck out everything instead of what that particular process ought looking for and tee the result over to some obscure process or table buried deep in the DB to retrieve it later by some query.Once you found a marker to your target you 'd just have to find the right DB keys they are associated with to get all the other data about them .
Somehow every Google account has a primary or some other key that associates the data .
No one is asking about low level DB security on this thread .
Who exactly gets granted access to the primary and following keys and tables .
Who has authority to restart processes ?
Are processes logged as to why they restarted with new values ? It 's quite possible there is a way to view Google accounts outside a web-interface which is what normal people think when they hear back door .
Its more sophisticated than viewing the raw dump .
I suspect the intrusion proved the new horizon for security : That it ispossible to " re-assemble " most if not all the account from the database ( s ) if you 've p0wnd the DB at a low level without the need for a backdoor to the actual account nor the Google foundational OS/netstack .
The Chinese probably attacked and penetrated the DB 's somehow.I think this is the great oversight it was not just that Gmail was hacked .
It is broader to say Google Accounts ; gmail points to web search which is tied to Picassa , which is tied to Blogger , which is tied to youtube , etc....All these have to be fortified at the DB level else any other measure of security is meaningless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's stance on database security is poorly documented and certainly not open.
I've yet to find comprehensive peer review of their architecture security (but then they are a for profit enterprise) and need not comply like Oracle, IBM DB2, MySQL?Numerous opportunities exist in the chain of data that Google is slurping through to build in "back doors" either deliberately or by "accident" expose data.Somehow they "parse"  accounts for words, addresses, html code, etc then use those datapoints to do statistical cross references to build the ad's.
Thats elementary.
However since they parse EVERYTHING in the account somehow the programmer(s) have to make design decisions on how to go about it.
Is there one process per type of data.
One that just looks for PDF code vs keywords?
Is there one process per country with applicable rules for that country?
Are the configuration tables for that process well protected and not able to be circumvented?Google has to crack open each file, Adobe reported a breach so perhaps the attack vector was in the PDF parse/scrubber at Google.It would be trivial "once inside the system" to set configs to just suck out everything instead of what that particular process ought looking for and tee the result over to some obscure process or table buried deep in the DB to retrieve it later by some query.Once you found a marker to your target you'd just have to find the right DB keys they are associated with to get all the other data about them.
Somehow every Google account has a primary or some other key that associates the data.
No one is asking about low level DB security on this thread.
Who exactly gets granted access to the primary and following keys and tables.
Who has authority to restart processes?
Are processes logged as to why they restarted with new values?It's quite possible there is a way to view Google accounts outside a web-interface which is what normal people think when they hear back door.
Its more sophisticated than viewing the raw dump.
I suspect the intrusion proved the new horizon for security: That it ispossible to "re-assemble" most if not all the account from the database(s) if you've p0wnd the DB at a low level without the need for a backdoor to the actual account nor the Google foundational OS/netstack.
The Chinese probably attacked and penetrated the DB's somehow.I think this is the great oversight it was not just that Gmail was hacked.
It is broader to say Google Accounts; gmail points to web search which is tied to Picassa, which is tied to Blogger, which is tied to youtube, etc....All these have to be fortified at the DB level else any other measure of security is meaningless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879226
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30894214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30883608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30882650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30887654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30888990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30886328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30885144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30885952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30892352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30884904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30881274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30886092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30885262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_24_1518213_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1518213.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30881274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30886092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30892352
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1518213.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1518213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1518213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1518213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30883608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30885952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30882650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1518213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30885262
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1518213.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880344
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1518213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30886328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1518213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1518213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1518213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879512
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1518213.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880328
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1518213.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1518213.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30878992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30887654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30894214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30885144
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879474
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30884904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879110
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30888990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_24_1518213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30879008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_24_1518213.30880236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
